[House Hearing, 113 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] RAISING THE BAR: THE ROLE OF CHARTER SCHOOLS IN K 12 EDUCATION ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 12, 2014 __________ Serial No. 113-49 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Available via the World Wide Web: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education or Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov ____________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 86-827 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016 ________________________________________________________________________________________ For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected]. COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin George Miller, California, Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Senior Democratic Member California Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Joe Wilson, South Carolina Virginia Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Ruben Hinojosa, Texas Tom Price, Georgia Carolyn McCarthy, New York Kenny Marchant, Texas John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Duncan Hunter, California Rush Holt, New Jersey David P. Roe, Tennessee Susan A. Davis, California Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Tim Walberg, Michigan Timothy H. Bishop, New York Matt Salmon, Arizona David Loebsack, Iowa Brett Guthrie, Kentucky Joe Courtney, Connecticut Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio Todd Rokita, Indiana Jared Polis, Colorado Larry Bucshon, Indiana Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Northern Mariana Islands Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Frederica S. Wilson, Florida Joseph J. Heck, Nevada Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon Susan W. Brooks, Indiana Mark Pocan, Wisconsin Richard Hudson, North Carolina Luke Messer, Indiana Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on March 12, 2014................................... 1 Statement of Members: Kline, Hon. John, Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce.................................................. 1 Prepared statement of.................................... 3 Miller, Hon. George, senior Democratic member, Committee on Education and the Workforce................................ 3 Prepared statement of.................................... 5 Statement of Witnesses: Graham Keegan, Lisa, Partner, Chair of the Board, National Association of Charter Schools Authorizers, Peoria, AZ..... 17 Prepared statement of.................................... 19 Linzey, David, Executive Director, Clayton Valley Charter High School, Concord, CA................................... 25 Prepared statement of.................................... 27 McGriff, Deborah, Chair of the Board, National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Milwaukee, WI...................... 7 Prepared statement of.................................... 9 Rosskamm, Alan, Chief Executive Officer, Breakthrough Schools, Cleveland, OH..................................... 40 Prepared statement of.................................... 42 Whitehead-Bust, Alyssa, Chief of Innovation and Reform, Denver Public Schools, Denver, CO.......................... 31 Prepared statement of.................................... 33 Additional Submissions: Chairman Kline, questions submitted for the record to:....... Mrs. Keegan.............................................. 76 Mr. Linzey............................................... 83 Dr. McGriff.............................................. 87 Mr. Rosskamm............................................. 93 Ms. Whitehead-Bust....................................... 97 Holt, Hon. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey, questions submitted for the record to:...... Mrs. Keegan.............................................. 76 Mr. Linzey............................................... 83 Dr. McGriff.............................................. 87 Mr. Rosskamm............................................. 93 Ms. Whitehead-Bust....................................... 97 Hudson, Hon. Richard, a Representative in Congress from the State of North Carolina, questions submitted for the record to:........................................................ Mr. Rosskamm............................................. 93 Response to questions submitted:............................. Mrs. Keegan.............................................. 77 Mr. Linzey............................................... 84 Dr. McGriff.............................................. 88 Mr. Rosskamm............................................. 94 Ms. Whitehead-Bust....................................... 98 Messer, Hon. Luke, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana........................................... Prepared statement of........................................ 67 Hinojosa, Hon. Ruben, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas............................................. Prepared statement of.................................... 46 RAISING THE BAR: THE ROLE OF CHARTER SCHOOLS IN K-12 EDUCATION ---------- Wednesday, March 12, 2014 U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Education and the Workforce, Washington, D.C. ---------- The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:38 a.m., in Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Kline [chairman of the committee] presiding. Present: Representatives Kline, Foxx, Roe, Thompson, Walberg, Salmon, Guthrie, DesJarlais, Rokita, Bucshon, Heck, Brooks, Hudson, Messer, Miller, Scott, Hinojosa, Tierney, Holt, Davis, Grijalva, Bishop, Fudge, Polis, and Pocan. Staff present: Janelle Belland, Coalitions and Members Services Coordinator; James Bergeron, Director of Education and Human Services Policy; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; Daniel Murner, Press Assistant; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Mandy Schaumburg, Senior Education Counsel; Dan Shorts, Legislative Assistant; Alex Sollberger, Communications Director; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director; Brad Thomas, Senior Education Policy Advisor; Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator; Kelly Broughan, Minority Education Policy Associate; Jacque Chevalier, Minority Education Policy Advisor; Jamie Fasteau, Minority Director of Education Policy; Scott Groginsky, Minority Education Policy Advisor; Brian Levin, Minority Deputy Press Secretary/New Media Coordinator; and Megan O'Reilly, Minority General Counsel. Chairman Kline. A quorum being present, the committee will come to order. Well, good morning. Thank you to our witnesses for joining us today to discuss how successful charter schools can strengthen our nation's education system. We appreciate your flexibility, given our need to reschedule the hearing due to last week's snowstorm. And for once, it wasn't just a single snowflake that shut this down, so we appreciate that very much. The charter school model began in 1991 in my home state of Minnesota. We passed legislation to create the nation's first charter schools. In the years that have followed, more than 6,000 charter schools have opened in 42 states and the District of Columbia, serving almost 2.5 million children each year. As you know, charter schools are public schools that operate under a contract, or charter, negotiated with the local school board or other authorizer. The charter school agrees to meet certain student achievement goals and metrics, and in exchange, the institution will be exempt from certain state laws and regulations. This enhanced flexibility encourages charter schools to pioneer new programs and teaching methods that are meeting the unique needs and students and getting real results. In Indianapolis, for example, the Charles A. Tindley Accelerated School expects every student--no matter his or her background or circumstance--to have a college acceptance letter upon graduation. The school's rigorous curriculum and laser focus on preparing students for higher education has helped more than 80 percent of its alumni earn a bachelor's degree. Yes Prep Public Schools in Memphis and Houston also have an impressive record of success. The schools, which primarily serve low-income families, offer SAT prep courses and classes that help students learn the financial aid system and practice writing college application essays. And the hard work pays off: For 15 years in a row, every Yes Prep graduate has been accepted into college. For many children and their parents, charter schools are a beacon of hope for a better education and a better life. The schools are extraordinarily in demand. Wait lists for charter schools have grown steadily in recent years, reaching a new record of 920,000 students in 2012. As we work to help more students access a quality education, we must support charter schools as a valuable alternative to failing public schools and work together to encourage their growth. Expanding choice and opportunity remains a key pillar in the committee's education reform efforts. Last Congress, we advanced the Empowering Parents Through Quality Charter Schools Act. The legislation, which passed the House with bipartisan support, would reauthorize the charter school program and allow successful charter schools to be replicated across the country. Similar language to support charter schools was included in last year's Student Success Act, our legislation to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and revamp the nation's education system. However, the Student Success Act has been awaiting Senate consideration for more than 6 months. Each day without Senate action is another day thousands of students remain trapped in underperforming schools. We cannot make these families wait any longer for the education their children need and deserve. If the Senate refuses to bring education reform legislation up for a vote, then the House will explore opportunities to advance targeted legislation to encourage charter school growth. Recent news highlights the challenges the charter school model faces and underscores the importance of reauthorizing and strengthening the charter school program to help ensure these institutions can continue raising student achievement levels nationwide. I look forward to discussing with my colleagues and our excellent panel of witnesses ways the House Education and the Workforce Committee can help strengthen the charter school model and support the expansion and growth of these innovative institutions. I now recognize my distinguished colleague, Mr. Miller, for his opening remarks. [The statement of Chairman Kline follows:] Prepared Statement of Hon. John Kline, Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce The charter school model began in 1991 when my home state of Minnesota passed legislation to create the nation's first charter schools. In the years that have followed, more than 6,000 charter schools have opened in 42 states and the District of Columbia, serving approximately 2.5 million children each year. As you know, charter schools are public schools that operate under a contract, or charter, negotiated with the local school board or other authorizer. The charter school agrees to meet certain student achievement goals and metrics, and in exchange, the institution will be exempt from certain state laws and regulations. This enhanced flexibility encourages charter schools to pioneer new programs and teaching methods that are meeting the unique needs of students and getting real results. In Indianapolis, for example, the Charles A. Tindley Accelerated School expects every student - no matter his or her background or circumstance - to have a college acceptance letter upon graduation. The school's rigorous curriculum and laser-focus on preparing students for higher education has helped more than 80 percent of its alumni earn a bachelor's degree. Yes Prep Public Schools in Memphis and Houston also have an impressive record of success. The schools, which primarily serve low- income families, offer SAT prep courses and classes that help students learn the financial aid system and practice writing college application essays. And the hard work pays off: for fifteen years in a row, every Yes Prep graduate has been accepted into college. For many children and their parents, charter schools are a beacon of hope for a better education - and a better life. The schools are extraordinarily in demand; wait lists for charter schools have grown steadily in recent years, reaching a new record of 920,000 students in 2012. As we work to help more students access a quality education, we must support charter schools as a valuable alternative to failing public schools, and work together to encourage their growth. Expanding choice and opportunity remains a key pillar in the committee's education reform efforts. Last Congress, we advanced the Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act. The legislation, which passed the House with bipartisan support, would reauthorize the Charter School Program and allow successful charter school models to be replicated across the country. Similar language to support charter schools was included in last year's Student Success Act, our legislation to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and revamp the nation's education system. However, theStudent Success Act has been awaiting Senate consideration for more than six months. Each day without Senate action is another day thousands of students remain trapped in underperforming schools. We cannot make these families wait any longer for the education their children need and deserve. If the Senate refuses to bring education reform legislation up for a vote, then the House will explore opportunities to advance targeted legislation to encourage charter school growth. Recent news highlights the challenges the charter school model faces, and underscores the importance of reauthorizing and strengthening the Charter School Program to help ensure these institutions can continue raising student achievement levels nationwide. I look forward to discussing with my colleagues and our excellent panel of witnesses ways the House Education and the Workforce Committee can help strengthen the charter school model and support the expansion and growth of these innovative institutions. ______ Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing and agreeing to re-establish the hearing after it was originally canceled. I want to thank our distinguished panel for their participation in today's hearing, and I look forward to your testimony. I am also eager to hear about the great work being done to improve our nation's education system. I am looking forward to today's discussion about how charter schools are benefiting students, parents and communities. I especially want to thank Mr. David Linzey, the executive director of Clayton Valley High School in Concord, California, who is with us today. The story of Clayton Valley's transformation in just 1 year is truly inspirational testament to the role charter schools can play in the K-12 system. I have seen this transformation firsthand, and let me tell you that Clayton Valley is a bright light in the 11th District. Students and parents are engaged. Teachers are supported. Student achievement is up, and the community is reaping the benefits. Mr. Linzey, thank you for traveling all this way today to tell the story of Clayton Valley's success. This school year, more than 2.5 million of our nation's students are attending nearly 6,400 public charter schools. In many ways, charter schools have been teaching us what is possible when it comes to educating kids, and their work helps break down many of the stereotypes that have all-too-often plagued kids who happen to be from the wrong ZIP Code. What started as a small movement just over 20 years ago has grown at breakneck speed. Now some school districts are enrolling significant percentages of their overall student population at public charter schools, but I worry that rapid growth will come at a cost of quality and accountability. Charters are given public dollars and flexibility in exchange for the promise to educate the students and, in many cases, turn around low-performing schools. However, when a charter school falls short of that promise, we owe it to the students, the families, and the teachers to hold the school responsible for improvement and close that school, if necessary, if they can't meet those goals. Like other public schools, it is vital that charter schools are held to a high standard of accountability. Every school in every neighborhood needs to be serving students and parents, delivering on the promise of quality education, and all schools need to equitably serve all students. As I have said before, and I will say it again, no kid should be trapped in a failing school, charter or non-charter. We must treat all public schools as part of the solution. And yet all too often, we refer to charter schools as ``those other schools'' and treat these innovations in public education as if they were on a separate parallel track to school districts and non-charter public schools. Instead, we must embrace charter schools as part of our current education system and work to ensure that the autonomy and flexibility that charter schools receive is used to the benefit of all students. We have seen success borne out of meaningful collaboration with districts and communities in places like Denver, where charter schools aren't often the side, but embraced as a driver of the whole district improvement. This kind of collaboration has fostered the transfer of best practices, many of which started as charter school innovations, but are now being applied in the public schools more broadly to enhance the services for underserved students, including students with disabilities. The district work in Denver is precisely what should be happening to benefit all kids, and we need to see more of this across the country. I look forward to hearing about Denver's successes from another one of the witnesses today, and I believe that it is a moral imperative to do better by our students and families. Higher standards and better assessments will help, but we must look at the innovative reforms, like charter schools, to push the envelope and spur the system to change when they seem to be stuck. And I want to thank the chairman again for calling this hearing and, again, thank you to the witnesses, and we look forward to your testimony. [The statement of Mr. Miller follows:] Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, Senior Democratic Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank our distinguished witness panel for their participation in today's hearing. I am always eager to hear about the great work being done to improve our nation's education system, and I am looking forward to today's discussion about how charter schools are benefiting students, parents, and communities. I especially want to thank Mr. David Linzey, the executive director of Clayton Valley High School in Concord, California, who is with us today. The story of Clayton Valley's transformation--in just one year--is a truly inspirational testament to the role charter schools can play within our K-12 system. I have seen this transformation first hand, and let me tell you that Clayton Valley is a bright light in the 11th district. Students and parents are engaged, teachers are supported, student achievement is up, and the community is reaping the benefits. Mr. Linzey, thank you for traveling here today to tell this story. This school year, more than 2.5 million of our nation's students are attending nearly 6,400 public charter schools. In many ways, charter schools have been teaching us what IS possible when it comes to educating kids--and their work helps break down many of the stereotypes that all too often plague kids who happen to be from the wrong zip code. What started as a small movement just over 20 years ago has grown at break-neck speed. Now, some school districts are enrolling significant percentages of their overall student population at public charter schools. But I worry that rapid growth has come at the cost of quality and accountability. Charters are given public dollars and flexibility in exchange for a promise to educate students and, in many cases, turn around low- performing schools. However, when a charter school falls short of that promise, we owe it to the students, families, and teachers to hold the school responsible for improvement--and close it if necessary. Like other public schools, it's vital that charter schools are held to a high standard of accountability. Every school in every neighborhood needs to be serving students and parents and delivering on the promise of quality education. And all schools need to equitably serve all students. I've said it before, and I will say it again: no kid should be trapped in a failing school--charter or noncharter. We must treat all public schools as part of the solution. Yet all too often we refer to charter schools as ``those other schools'' and treat this innovation in public education as if it were on a separate, parallel track to school districts and non-charter public schools. Instead, we must embrace charter schools as part of our current education system and work to ensure that the autonomy and flexibility that charter schools receive is used to benefit all students. We've seen success born out of meaningful collaboration with districts and communities in places like Denver, where charter schools aren't off to the side, but embraced as a driver of whole-district improvement. This kind of collaboration has fostered the transfer of best practices, many of which started as charter school innovations, but are now being applied to public schools more broadly to enhance services for underserved students, including students with disabilities. The district work in Denver is precisely what should be happening to benefit all kids, and we need to see more of this across the country. I look forward to hearing about Denver's successes from another one of the witnesses here today. I believe there is a moral imperative to do better by our students and families. Higher standards and better assessments will help, but we must look to innovative reforms, like charter schools, to push the envelope and spur systems to change when they seem to be stuck. I want to thank the chairman for calling today's hearing, and I look forward to the discussion. ______ Chairman Kline. Thank you. Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(c), all committee members will be permitted to submit written statements to be included in the permanent hearing record. And without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 14 days to allow statements, questions for the record, and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be submitted in the official hearing record. It is now my pleasure to introduce our very distinguished panel of witnesses. Dr. Deborah McGriff is the chair of the board for the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. She also serves as a partner with New Schools Venture Fund. Previously, she has served as the first female superintendent of Detroit Public Schools. Mrs. Lisa Graham Keegan is the chair of the board for the National Association of Charter School Authorizers. She also serves as the founder and president of the Education and Breakthrough Network. Previously, she has served as Arizona's superintendent of public instruction. And I think, Mr. Miller, did you want to introduce our-- Mr. Miller. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am honored to introduce Mr. David Linzey, the executive director of the Clayton Valley Charter High School in Concord, California. Mr. Linzey was unanimously appointed to serve as executive director of the charter high school's governing board following the school's 2012 conversion to a public charter school. Prior to leading Clayton Valley, he spent time as a teacher, principal, and a district superintendent, as well as chief academic officer for the Alliance of College-Ready Public Schools, a high-performing charter school network in Los Angeles. While with the alliance, he led the urban charter schools to achieve record-breaking college acceptance rates of more than 90 percent. His track record of student-centered and result-driven instruction has followed him to Clayton Valley, where just in 1 year since the charter conversion, the school has achieved the largest increase in student academic growth of any high school in the state. I want to personally thank Mr. Linzey for his leadership to Clayton Valley. Your vision, your hard work, your dedication, and your dedicated faculty have truly ushered in a new era for this high school and for its community of students, families and faculty. And I know the process of conversion was arduous at some point there, a little combative, but the results are indisputable. And I am pleased that you will be able to be with us today, David. Thank you so much for making the trip. Chairman Kline. The pressure is on. You got that. Okay. [Laughter.] We also have Ms. Alyssa Whitehead-Bust. She serves as the chief of innovation and reform at Denver Public Schools. She is also an instructor in the University of Denver's Education Leadership for Successful Schools Principal Preparation Program. That is more alliteration than I can handle there. Mr. Alan Rosskamm is the chief executive officer of Breakthrough Schools in Cleveland, Ohio. He also serves at the chair of the Parent Engagement Committee on the City of Cleveland's Transformation Alliance. So, welcome to you all. Before I recognize each of you to provide your testimony, let me briefly explain, again--I know it has been pointed out--our lighting system. When you start your testimony, 5 minutes will be allotted. You will have a green light in front of you. When there is a minute left, the yellow light will come on. And when you have reached the end of your 5 minutes, the red light will come on, and I would ask you to try to wrap up as expeditiously then as you can. After all of you have finished your testimony, then we will be recognized for 5 minutes each to ask questions. While I am loathe to gavel down the witnesses during their testimony, I am much less so with my colleagues. So we want to try to keep moving, give everybody have a chance to be involved in the discussion. I now would like to recognize Dr. McGriff for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF DR. DEBORAH MCGRIFF, CHAIR OF THE BOARD, NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS, MILWAUKEE, WI Ms. McGriff. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. I currently serve as the board chair of the National Alliance, and I am also a managing director at New Schools Venture Fund, a nonprofit organization that supports entrepreneurs who are transforming public education. I came to New Schools after a long career as an urban school teacher, district administrator, superintendent, and national charter schools leader. Throughout my career, I have been committed to choice, excellence and equity. Today I want to highlight the growth and impact of charter schools and the importance of the federal charter schools program to the growth and success of our nation's public charter schools. Let's start with growth and impact. This school year, there are more than 6,400 public charter schools enrolling 2.5 million students. This is amazing growth, as the movement began, as our chairman informed us, in 1991 with the passage of the first charter legislation in the state of Minnesota and with the opening of the first charter school the following year. Today, 42 states and the District of Columbia have now passed charter school laws, and in 135 communities, more than 10 percent of the students attend public charter schools. And in seven school districts, the charter school students exceed 30 percent of the public school population. As you know, Congress first created the charter schools program in 1994, and research shows that investment has paid off. Today, 15 of 16 gold standard research studies conducted on public charter school student performance since 2010 have found that public charter schools are exceeding in their mission. Most important, charter schools are helping students who need it most. A 2013 study conducted by Stanford University's Center for Research on Education Outcomes on public charter school performance looked at public charter school performance in 27 states and found that charter school students are outperforming their peers in reading in traditional public schools and they are closing the achievement gap among subgroups. Charter schools are seeing success in closing the achievement gap, while at the same time the percentage of public charter school students of color and from low-income families is much higher than the percent in traditional public schools. While public charter schools have been at the forefront of serving disadvantaged populations since the movement began, the National Alliance has worked to continuously improve these efforts. The National Alliance recently issued guidance to the charter school community on their legal obligations to serve English-language learners and provided a toolkit to guide those efforts. In addition, we at the alliance partnered with the newly formed National Center for Special Education in Charter Schools last October to issue a report on how states can provide support to charter schools and how charter authorizers in meeting their legal responsibilities to strengthen the recruitment and services for children with disabilities. Now to talk a little about the charter school program. The charter school program through the State Education Agency Grants Program provides the start-up capital needed to design a school, hire a leader, recruit students, staff, and make initial purchases of materials and equipment until regular state and local funding becomes available. Beginning in the fiscal year 2010, Congress continued its work, seeding quality charter school networks by enabling high- performing public charter schools to receive funding under the CSP grants for the replication and expansion of high-quality schools. The other major piece of the CSP program is support for facilities funding. Public charter schools most often devote scarce resources to securing space for their schools. The credit enhancement for charter schools program and the state's facilities incentive grants help redress the fiscal imbalance and ensure that our public charter schools have the facilities they need. As the Congress continues to work on reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the number-one message that I want to leave with you today is that the CSP program is working and that both Congress and the administration should prioritize funding for the program to help us meet the needs and demands of parents and ensure funding equity for students who attend public charter schools. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on the growth and impact of charter schools in American public education. I am happy to answer any questions that you might have. [The statement of Dr. McGriff follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Kline. Thank you. Mrs. Keegan, you are recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF MRS. LISA GRAHAM KEEGAN, CHAIR OF THE BOARD, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHARTER SCHOOLS AUTHORIZERS, PEORIA, AZ Mrs. Keegan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Miller, and committee members. I appreciate being here today, and specifically to talk about charter school authorizers, the boards that put charter schools into business, and particularly those members of NACSA. I serve as the chairwoman of the National Alliance for Charter School--or the National Association--sorry, Deborah--for Charter School Authorizers, NACSA. We represent boards who are overseeing more than half of the nation's public charter schools. I had the opportunity in Arizona to help write the charter school law in 1994, and I followed that as the state school superintendent into implementation, beginning in 1995. It is awfully nice to be 20 years down the road and know a lot more about what the work of authorizing public charter schools is. And the reason that we know that is because, at the same time we started public charter schools in this country, we got a much better look at data. We started to collect student data. And I have to thank the members of this committee for their dedication to this data over time. Twenty years ago, we didn't have this data when we started public charter schools. Today, we do. We also, though, when we started public charter schools, we initiated the first public schools created specifically to advance achievement. That was the goal. In charter schools, we see schools that are intentional. They are designed with a mission that is created by teachers, educators, who have a vision for a need that is seen and not met. It is a difference, it is a shift in the way we open a public school. It is an important shift, and we have seen thousands of leaders come to the fore to offer their mission. In addition, we have seen authorizing boards have to learn how to understand whether the people who sit in front of them are capable of delivering on that promise that they are so committed to. That has required a great deal of attention to the data that we have and the consistency of practice over time. At NACSA, I am particularly proud to be part of our effort called One Million Lives. The One Million Lives effort encourages charter-authorizing boards around the nation to use what we know about what excellence looks like and to only approve those applications, those dreams that have a good likelihood of resulting in a school that is worthy of the students in it. In addition, we ask our charter authorizers to take the difficult step of closing those schools, as Mr. Miller was discussing, that have not fulfilled their promise. It is a difficult task. It is an essential task. Over 5 years, we believe we will affect at least a million lives in this way for the better and have students in excellent schools. After the first year, I can tell you it looks like good progress. Last year, we saw 450 public charter schools open. That is not all of the public charter schools that open, but that is a number that we know were started by charter boards with the commitment to high-quality standards. At the same time, 206 public charter schools closed last year. Now, that opening number is high, seems high, 450. It actually could be a lot higher. As the chairman has indicated, we have got close to a million students sitting on wait lists. The closure number is high. It is going to stay high for a few years. This country has opened a number of schools because we didn't know. Those schools will have to close. That number will stay high for a few years. We suspect it will then come down-- we hope it will--and that we will get in the business of only starting excellence. But we probably will continue to have some failure as innovation is essential in this field. So this is great progress in charter authorizing. It is also progress just generally in public education. What does a great school look like at opening? What does a great school look like in operation? When do you have to intervene as a board? Hopefully we are fast approaching the day when any public charter school will be an intentional school and one that is only opened because the mission of that school is well understood and the leadership that is going to be at the helm has a proven record of success before they even begin this new school. So we have learned a lot. We know a lot. But it is not yet time to codify this moment, because as our friend and mentor Geoff Canada reminds us, our work is not close to being done, and we have to push so hard on innovation that there will continue to be failures, new trials, new attempts. We have to allow that to happen. And the critical balance for charter authorizers and for any school board is to use the best of what we know today and to be open to what is possible tomorrow. At NACSA, we are very humble to be doing that work with leaders around the country. And I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Miller, for your ongoing support for charter authorizing at quality, and to thank the rest of the members for your work, and I am happy to answer any questions. [The statement of Mrs. Keegan follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Kline. Thank you. Mr. Linzey, you are recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID LINZEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CLAYTON VALLEY CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL, CONCORD, CA (DEMOCRAT WITNESS) Mr. Linzey. Chairman Kline, Congressman Miller, and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here today to tell the transformative story of Clayton Valley Charter High School, a secondary school in Concord, California. Charter schools allow for the critical autonomy in decision-making, compared to the bureaucracy and red tape of the local districts. In traditional schools and districts, it often takes years to make important changes, with obstacles met almost at every turn. This is different for charter schools, as we have the capacity to make school-based decisions regarding curriculum, supports, interventions, and more, in a timely manner. A charter school is a speedboat in contrast to the Titanic of the district decision-making. Those in the trenches typically understand what changes need to occur to meet the needs of students as opposed to those who are farther removed. Charter schools allow opportunity for improvement, innovation, and site-based decision-making. Clayton Valley has undergone a remarkable transformation since converting to a charter school in July 2012. After years of frustration and neglect by the local district, the teachers' turmoil reached a boiling point. This led to a vote by the teachers to convert the school from traditional to a charter school, using the state's conversion law. The mission was clear: The teachers and the extended community of parents and community leaders banded together in support of making a better school. They wanted to bring the school out of its complacency of underachievement, decline in facilities, low staff morale, and student apathy. Parents had been disengaged for many years. Professional development was nearly absent, and the school had reached a low point in statewide student achievement, earning a ranking of 1 out of 10 on the similar schools scale. Despite opposition from district leadership, the charter school had tremendous support from Congressman George Miller and other key leaders who took a stand in support of our desire to become a charter school. The Contra Costa County Office of Education unanimously approved our charter petition. And then the work really began. I was appointed to be the executive director with a mission to galvanize the school into a common vision, leading the charter school from good to great. Then I hired a quality administrative team, and in just 6 weeks after I was hired, we opened the school with 1,900 students, the same students who attended the prior year. But the difference was immediate and astonishing. Much to the amazement of the staff, the parents, the students, the school was transformed almost overnight with the instructional framework of rigor, relevance, and relationships, as developed by Dr. Willard Daggett. I spent nearly a week with the teachers and administrators discussing what quality instruction looked like, how application makes learning relevant, and how nurturing relationships between teachers and students lays a foundation where students want to learn and they want to perform academically. Professional development became the constant theme. And one of the founding charter teachers, current administrator Neil McChesney stated, ``I received more professional development in 1 year at the charter school than I had in 10 previous years.'' Innovative intervention programs were implemented to support struggling students in the summers, after school, and even on Saturdays. There was an all-out focus on improving student achievement, and the teachers caught the vision. We embraced the very same strategies implemented by many other schools, charter schools alike, and these included powerful intervention programs to close the achievement gap, instructional guides, benchmark assessments, a failure-free zone policy where students had to do their work well or stay after school and do it over. The kids interpreted that as love. [Laughter.] We implemented innovative instructional approaches, extensive professional development. Parent involvement became a key theme with over 250 parents actively involved on a regular basis. Instructional software programs were utilized significantly. And then we implemented powerful counseling and guidance programs. While no single best practice is unique, the buy-in to these strategies by staff and the blend of all of these strategies has resulted in a whole new culture and a whole new campus. The desire by the teachers to do better and do more for students is remarkable. The autonomy is paying off quickly. Clayton Valley High School had the top academic achievement growth in California last year for large high schools. Their 62-point jump on the state's API took them from a score of 774 to 836 in a single year, ranking us at a 9 out of 10 on the statewide scale. The entire community of Clayton knows the significant transformation that has occurred. There is great community pride in our school. And CVCHS now has a waiting list of nearly 400 students for the fall of 2014. Without becoming a charter school, this transformation would have never occurred. The success of Clayton Valley and the tremendous gains has caused the local district and other schools to pay attention and borrow from our best practices. And as the executive director, my ultimate desire is to see academic success for all the students in my community, those at the charter and those at other schools, and it is our commitment to share those best practices with everyone who will listen. Again, this success would not have occurred without becoming a charter, and I want to thank you for allowing me to share that story, and I want to thank Congressman George Miller for his support. [The statement of Mr. Linzey follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Kline. Thank you. Ms. Whitehead-Bust, you are recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF MS, ALYSSA WHITEHEAD-BUST, CHIEF OF INNOVATION AND REFORM, DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS, DENVER, CO (DEMOCRAT WITNESS) Ms. Whitehead-Bust. Thank you, Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, members of the committee. I am honored to be here today representing Denver Public Schools and testifying on behalf of the important role that public charter schools play in our urban school system, a system which is dedicated to realize equity and achievement for all students. My name is Alyssa Whitehead-Bust. I serve as the chief of innovation and reform. And in that role, I oversee charter school authorization, quality control, and collaboration. Previously, for 15 years, I helped launch and lead charter schools across the country. I am proud today to be part of a district that I think is setting the pace nationally, in part because of our intentional and strategic strategy around equity and collaboration between all public schools in our system, including our charters. Denver Public Schools is one of the fastest-growing urban districts in the nation, serving over 87,000 students from diverse backgrounds. Of the district's 170 K-12 public schools, one in four are charter schools. Serving 13,000 students, Denver charter schools educate an equitable portion of the 72 percent of our students who qualify for the federal free and reduced lunch program, as well as of the 39 percent of our students who speak Spanish as their primary language. In Denver, we see the success of the charter sector as a necessary, but not sufficient component of a larger strategy that focuses on ensuring equity of access to high-quality public schools for all students. We see collaboration and the transfer of promising practices as an equally, if not more important component of our strategy. We know that by collaborating across all school types and thinking of our charter schools in part as the R&D lab that their original federal mandate suggests, we can more quickly fulfill our fundamental promise to graduate 100 percent of our students ready to persist in college and career. Our three equities, as we call them in Denver, set a solid foundation for the collaboration that is propelling our success. Denver public charter school leaders, as well as our school board, have mutually adopted a set of commitments to ensuring equity of accountability, equity of responsibility for serving all students, and equity of opportunity to access key resources, including financial resources and facilities. As an example, all Denver schools are publicly held to the same accountability framework. In addition, all of our new school and closure standards are applied to all schools, regardless of governance type. A full 79 percent of our charter schools are located in district-owned or operated facilities. This shared commitment to our three equities has fostered a fertile ground for the success of our charter schools themselves, as well as for the collaboration between all schools in our public system. In Denver, charters do add quality seats to a system that needs them, filling both capacity needs and performance gaps across all areas of the city. While Denver has shown steady improvement in performance across all measures and all school types since 2005, charter schools have simultaneously and consistently outperformed other school models. Since 2010, our charter school enrollment has grown by 17 percent annually. Charter schools are in high demand in part because their autonomies give them the opportunity to try innovative and promising new practices. For example, charters in Denver have led the way in piloting strategies related to human capital, school culture, instructional delivery, and use of time and technology. Denver charters were amongst the city's first public schools to expand learning time by extending both the day and the year. They have led the way in the use of data to drive instruction, as well as in establishing high-expectation learning cultures for both students and grownups. While these innovations are important unto themselves for the benefit of charter school students, they are particularly important in the context of collaboration. If isolated to the province of charter schools alone, such promising practices would only impact 15 percent of our students in Denver. But because of Denver's approach to equity and collaboration, these promising practices are able to spread quickly to schools across governance type; 5 years ago, expanded learning was largely a charter school strategy. Today, dozens of non-charter schools have extended both their days and their years to ensure that they are offering more and better learning time for kids. Denver students and families need our charter sector to continue and to continue to adopt and share promising practices. Cities across the nation likewise are depending on a thriving and successful charter sector as part of our shared and intentional strategy to provoke dramatic gains in student achievement and dramatic reductions in achievement gaps. I encourage Congress to align its work to the reauthorization with important role of charter schools being at the forefront of your mind. I thank you for your time and look forward to answering any questions you may have. [The statement of Ms. Whitehead-Bust follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Kline. Thank you. Mr. Rosskamm, you are recognized. STATEMENT OF MR. ALAN ROSSKAMM, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BREAKTHROUGH SCHOOLS, CLEVELAND, OH Mr. Rosskamm. Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to discuss Breakthrough Schools and the transformative education efforts happening in Cleveland, Ohio. Breakthrough is a nonprofit charter management organization operating nine schools, with over 2,500 students, and growing to serve almost 7,000 schools by 2020. Our student population is 96 percent minority, 84 percent low-income. For the second year in a row, Breakthrough is the highest-rated charter network in the state of Ohio. Our network had a unique start, growing out of a collaborative effort by three existing independent charter schools, each with a distinctive educational model. In 2009, they came together to improve their schools' long-term financial sustainability and to enable growth so that they could serve more children. Our partnerships with families is key to our students' success. Our teachers conduct summer home visits, and parent- teacher conferences approach 100 percent participation in many of our schools. Our Through College Program mentors students and their parents in the selection of high-quality college preparatory high schools that best fit their needs. Those efforts culminate in one of my proudest evenings of the year, where the 24 best high schools in Cleveland--independent schools, parochial, charter and district schools--all join us for a high school fair, with our parents and our children shopping together for the right school. At Breakthrough, we particularly value our relationship with the Cleveland Metropolitan School District. Breakthrough Schools is currently the only charter schools in the city sponsored by the district. Together, we work toward solutions that benefit children. Breakthrough's principals and a group of district principals meet regularly for professional development and to share best practices. I feel I have a true partner in District CEO, Eric Gordon. We have also collaborated on facilities since 2011, when we purchased four closed buildings from the district and co- located one of our new schools inside an existing district high school. In both instances, these were firsts in Ohio. The co- location arose when the church lease we were counting on fell through just a few weeks before our new west side school was scheduled to open. Eric and the CMSD Board of Education showed tremendous courage and vision, allowing our elementary school to open in the basement of a district high school. Very quickly, we had CMSD high school students greeting our kindergartners at the door and walking them upstairs to breakfast each morning. When we outgrew that space, the district agreed to a lease of the empty school building next door for only $1 a year. There is a definite sense on both sides that we really are in this together. Our joint goal is to create more high-quality seats for children, regardless of who owns them. Our city is best known for our unique collaborative approach to urban education reform. The greatest example of our partnership has been the work with Mayor Frank Jackson's office, the greater Cleveland partnership, our Chamber of Commerce, the Cleveland Teachers Union, the Cleveland and Gund Foundations, the school district, and Breakthrough Schools to create and pass the Cleveland Plan: transformative bipartisan legislation that has enabled our city to pursue our shared vision of a portfolio school district, offering high-quality school options in every neighborhood. Part of the Cleveland Plan included the creation of the Transformation Alliance, a nonprofit organization charged with monitoring the quality of all Cleveland public schools, district and charter, to enable parents to make informed school choices for their children. Following the plan's passage, we worked closely together again to pass a $15 mil operating levy, the first operating levy to pass in our city in 16 years. Cleveland is only the second city in the country, behind Denver, to allow charter schools to receive a small portion of the local tax levy dollars. As I think the committee can see, in Cleveland all of us have put traditional differences aside for the benefit of the city's children. Breakthrough is an example of how educational entrepreneurs have created innovative schools that work and then proceeded to replicate to create quality seats for many more children. This phenomenon is taking place across the nation. Breakthrough is one of 24 high-performing charter management organizations that collectively operate more than 400 schools across 53 communities and 23 states, serving 154,000 students. If we operated as a district, we would be the 15th-largest and the highest-performing urban district in the country. With your ongoing support, we plan collectively to open 370 new schools over the next 5 years and to serve an additional 200,000 students. High-quality charters like those in the Breakthrough network and our peers across the country are proving every day that historically disadvantaged students can learn and excel. I thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this morning, and I look forward to your questions. [The statement of Mr. Rosskamm follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6827.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6827.027 Chairman Kline. Thank you very much. I thank all the witnesses, really, really great testimony. We have been doing some chattering up here, not out of disrespect for what you are saying, but out of interest in what you are saying. So really, really very, very good testimony. Mrs. Keegan, I think there is a lot of misunderstanding--or lack of understanding may be another way of putting it--of the role of authorizers. And we know that authorizers authorize the school to start, and they play a role in closing, but can you sort of lay out what the role is from inception to potentially end, just tell us how that works? Mrs. Keegan. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman and members, this role has evolved, as you know, but primarily charter school authorizers--and Arizona was the first state to have a state board specifically for charter schools, no appeals process, that is their job--now there are any number of different kinds of authorizers. Certainly, the local school district remains an authorizer in most of the 42 states. As one option, there are state boards for charter schools. There are other independent boards, often out of universities or other community service organizations. So those boards are charged with basically accepting the application from a group of teaching professionals that say, this is the school we would like to run. There are sometimes transformative moves, as Mr. Linzey was describing, where there is the opportunity to convert from traditional practice, traditional district school, to a new converted public charter school. So many, many different kinds of governance within even the charter sector itself. So authorizers take that first look, and they say yes or no, you can go into business or you may not, and that is not where it stops. Charter contracts generally now, 5 years at the start. At NACSA, we recommend that all be no more than 5 years at the start, and maybe if you have been a great school for decades, you can have a 15-year contract, but you have got to prove that you are great over time. That work of watching a school over time is what I think is most interesting right now. We have a lot of networks that we know have replicated themselves, the Breakthrough network notably among the best in the country. So we know what that looks like. And more than that, we know what Alan looks like. This has a lot to do with people. People are policy. People are practice. And so it is up to a governing board, a charter- authorizing board to recognize the expertise of the people behind that application at inception and then ongoing. And then it is their job when the schools fail to shut that school down. That is never easy. It is never easy for kids. Oftentimes, you can shut that public charter school down knowing that kids will not have better options. Hopefully we are coming up with better ways to maybe transfer those charter schools over to networks like Breakthrough that are exceptional, let a better team come in and take that over so that students don't lose in that equation. But for sure, charter authorizing boards that are overseeing schools that cannot make good on their promise have got to shut those down. Chairman Kline. And you can do that fairly quickly? How long does it take you to shut a school down? Mrs. Keegan. Mr. Chairman and members, it has been taking way too long. I would say part of that was lack of data in the first place. Now we know pretty quickly. We know within the first 2 years, quite frankly, the school is going to make it or it isn't. I have to say, for the first 10 years, though, as these schools got up and running, there is a bunch of them I am glad we didn't shut down, particularly community schools that were struggling to get it right, and many have now. I am glad we let them go. But it doesn't take long now. And the practice--organizations like NACSA that can help charter authorizers understand the laws and regulations they need to have in place to be able to quickly close these schools down or bring in better operators, that knowledge is coming, I think is here now, and just more boards have to adopt it. Chairman Kline. What do you have to do legally to shut one down? I hate to be focusing on the shutting down part here. We are excited about charter schools and them starting, but clearly, this is a power, this is a practice, this is a possibility that really doesn't exist in the traditional public schools. So how do you do that? Mrs. Keegan. Mr. Chairman and members, the charter school has a contract that says they will do a certain number of things, and charter authorizing boards now, fortunately, have set most of the good ones at an even higher standard than the state has. Once that is violated, the school is noticed under whatever legal notice process exists in the state, and so it is a legal notification process. It probably takes at least 18 months, and so that is why you have to get right on it, because this is a right, as you have indicated. A contract is a right. It is a business right. But charter authorizers can act very quickly to give that first notice that the charter has not been met as soon as you see, you know, reporting, academic reporting or financial reporting. Often these are financial problems, and they need to act on that as quickly as possible, probably no shorter timeframe than 18 months, but it shouldn't be much longer than 2 years. Chairman Kline. Okay. Thank you very much. My time has expired. Mr. Miller? Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. McGriff referred to the National Center on Special Education Charter Schools. I would like to submit for the record their testimony and ask unanimous consent to be made part of the record. [The information follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Kline. Without objection. Mr. Miller. Thank you. Mr. Linzey, given the nature of the attendance area of Clayton Valley charter high school, I wonder if you might describe what you saw at Clayton Valley prior to its conversion to a charter school. Mr. Linzey. I was able to visit the school in the several months prior to us becoming a conversion school. And the school, quite honestly, looked apathetic. The students looked disinterested. It was obvious there was apathy amongst the kids. In speaking with staff members, there was incredibly low staff morale, frustration, and so the campus wasn't very clean. The facilities did not look like they were kept up very well. It is about a 60-year-old facility, and it looked like it. It had aged every bit of that and then some. And so there was some hope by the leaders of the conversion, there was a hope by a lot of staff. The parents were incredibly excited about the newness, the new opportunity to be a part of this school again. In talking with many of the parents, they just weren't a part of the school for the past number of years. Mr. Miller. Can you describe the demographics? Mr. Linzey. The demographics--it is a suburban school. It is not like the traditional--or what you might see in a normal, very urban school. It is predominantly Caucasian, and then the next subgroup would be Hispanic population, with smaller groups of Asian and African-American students. There is probably about a 20 percent free and reduced lunch student body there, and then there is a segment of English learners. I would like to report that every single subgroup grew significantly on our state tests, and most successful were the groups that were the farthest behind. And we took great pride in that. Mr. Miller. You have 20 percent free and reduced. You also have some very high-income. Mr. Linzey. We do. It is a suburban school, and the city of Clayton is a more affluent area. So that is kind of rare to see a conversion charter school in a suburban setting like that, but just shows you the level of frustration that was in existence. Mr. Miller. Thank you. Ms. Whitehead-Bust, the question of facilities, can you describe the process by which facilities are able to be made available for charters in Denver? Ms. Whitehead-Bust. We have an internal policy that allows us to think about equitable placement of our charter schools, thinking about our vision of ensuring that all students have access to a high-quality school. We look first and foremost at the track record of the school and its ability to serve students in a particular neighborhood. We then also look at the ability for a school, if they are going to be co-located, sharing a campus, to collaborate with the school that is also on that same campus. So are there opportunities to share professional learning, programming, school culture, those kinds of things? So charter schools have the opportunity to present their case to us, that they would like to be located in a district-owned or operated facility, and then there is a placement process that looks at a variety of transparently publicized criteria, and then we make our decisions from there. Mr. Miller. - they are co-located, between the charter and the traditional school? Ms. Whitehead-Bust. You know, I would follow up on the statement that we are getting better and better at this work overall. I think if you looked at our first campus-sharing campuses, you would see that we have gotten considerably more intentional about placement decisions today to ensure the kind of collaboration that we really want. So I will give you a very specific example. We have a campus in the middle of urban Denver that co-locates Cole Elementary School. It is an innovation school and the Denver School of Science and Technology middle and high school. And they have adopted a shared mascot, shared language for student discipline, shared systems and structures to have adult learning transfer from one side of the campus to the other side of the campus. That is working incredibly well. It is working that well in part because we learned from some of our early experiences. Mr. Miller. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Kline. Thank you. Dr. Roe, you are recognized. Mr. Roe. I thank the chairman for recognizing. And kudos for all of you all for what you are doing. I mean, it is just amazing what I am hearing. And, Mr. Linzey, job well done. I wanted to start out by saying that. I have heard a common theme, and I would--I have got a lot of questions I am going to submit to you all in writing, but one is, why do we need--why do we need charter schools? I mean, and I think the reason is, is to narrow the achievement gap, I believe is the reason that we are having that, and I want to know how you define a failing school. I hate to go back to what the chairman was saying, but I have been a former mayor. Fortunately, I just got to build schools, but closing one is your worst nightmare. So I know just from a standpoint of a community and how they are attached to the school, that is a very difficult thing to do, so I would like to have you all talk about that. Do you use a common curriculum? Are you all in the charter school system--because we know--ought to know now what works. And if you know in 2 years what failure is, already you have defined that, then why don't we just--when we start one of these--do what works? And what I have heard you all say is, we have to have great teachers that are constantly motivated, and the question is, how do you not hire underperforming teachers? That is also very hard. Great leadership in the principal's office I think is another thing I have heard, the length of the day. Nobody wants to go to school longer. Mr. Linzey, I can assure you, if you had challenged me with studying and getting my work done or staying after school, I know what I am going to do. It is good leverage. [Laughter.] And then summer programs, no one talked about that, about how you narrow that. So I will stop. I want to hear what you have got to say about all of those things. And anybody can answer that. Mrs. Keegan. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Roe, I am happy to start this, and there is a great deal of expertise here, so I will be brief. But I would simply say, the curriculum that each of these schools choose is going to be very different. It is mind- blowing, actually, what is out there, some schools using a hybrid techniques, part digital learning, part teachers, some using very traditional methodology that I would recognize as my grade school eons ago. And yet it is about a decision to be excellent in excellent schools. I would even say that at this point what we know is it is not so much what a charter school does, it is what a school does, and that looks the same whether it is district, charter, magnet, all public schools, governance aside, once you get in there, it is about instruction and the decision to be at, A, using the time and the intention and the expertise to get there, and you can do it in a lot of different ways. What you see as an authorizer, however, is it is either being done according to the contract with data that shows you it is or it isn't. So I will let my colleagues speak to that. Mr. Linzey. Yes, thank you. And thanks again for the questions, outstanding questions. I would like to just speak to the issue of curriculum for a second. Most charter schools, all charter schools that I am aware of teach to the standards of their state curriculum, so the common curriculum is the same curriculum as the state you are in. And now we are moving to a national curriculum, the common core curriculum, and so that is a big shift for all schools in the nation, really. But within the curriculum, there is instruction. And so instructional practices vary greatly from school to school, from classroom to classroom in a school, and so it is up to the leadership within the school to ensure there is high standards, quality instruction, monitoring, professional development, and with budget cuts in California, I know, and probably every other state, a lot of the funding for professional development has been cut and days for professional development in the summer has been cut. But as a charter school, you have that autonomy to spend your dollars where you think it needs to be spent, so we still, with the same dollars that other schools got, charter or non- charter, we were able to fund teachers the past 2 summers for extensive professional development and then to pay teachers to work on Saturdays to work with intervention programs, using research-based practices. I like to tell our teachers, not every strategy is the same. There are research-based practices. Dr. Robert Marzano has his nine that are the highly effective strategies. That became our bible for, let's get these nine done well, and then we can move on to some others. Mr. Roe. My time is about expired. Let me get two quick questions. Where are charters located? Are they urban? I live in a rural area. Where are they located? And, two, how do you answer the question about charters taking money away from underfunded public schools and selecting students? I think that is an argument you hear all the time, so I don't know whether you have got time to answer, but in writing I would like to hear those. Mr. Rosskamm. I would be happy to comment on the funding. There is no question that when students leave a school, a certain number of dollars leave with them. Whether they are leaving the city altogether because parents feel they can get a better education in a suburban district, whether they are moving to a parochial or independent school, or whether they are moving to a charter school. On the other side of that equation, at least in our city, and in our state of Ohio, the charter schools that are accepting those children are only getting--are getting less than two-thirds of the funding that the district school is spending per child, and the district facilities are funded through bonds and through state facilities, whereas the charter schools are paying rent on those facilities. So we start with a substantial disadvantage, and yet we have to do the same job and hope to do that job better. Mr. Roe. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Chairman Kline. Thank you. Mr. Hinojosa, you are recognized. Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you, Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller. I strongly believe that all schools, including charter schools, should offer a high-quality education and serve all students equitably. I have experience as the local school board of trustees member. I have experience as the member of the Texas State Board of Education for 10 years and a trustee for a community college before I came to Congress. So much of what we are discussing today is of great interest to me, because I believe that charter schools, especially those that are high-quality charter schools, are definitely contributing to our education progress in schools throughout the United States. But I have a problem with seeing that in my state of Texas, where we have over 6 million students in our K-12 programs, that the legislature cut $6 billion about 3 or 4 years ago, and we had to raise the average of students in each classroom from what was average to have 22 up to 25, 28. I looked at the statistics that several of you have given, like the state of Ohio, with a number of students and campuses, and it equals 280 students per campus. I looked at the state of Texas on our public charter schools, the number of campuses we have, and it averages 323 per campus. So wanting to make all of our schools operate as well as the exemplary and high-quality charter schools, tell me how that can be done. All the public schools my children have gone to have had close to 1,000 students in that campus, high schools. My last, fifth child is in high school with 2,000 students. So it just seems like we are comparing two different types of programs for so many students in the average public school in the country versus our best charter schools. So let me ask Ms. Whitehead-Bust, what is your answer to changing things in our public schools? Ms. Whitehead-Bust. One of the things that we are finding in Denver is incredibly helpful is pairing teachers and school leaders between different school types to share their promising practices. You are referencing perhaps small schools as being one strategy. We see many strategies that are really important for student success, data-driven instruction, high-quality student culture, high-quality adult learning. We heard from our colleagues that operate schools some of the strategies that they have put in place. And so in Denver what we have tried to do is pair our leaders and educators from across different schools to share some of those promising practices. So as an example, STRIVE is one of our highest performing charter networks in Denver. They operate largely a series of middle schools. They host, as an example, extraordinarily high-quality data analysis sessions with their teachers that allow their teachers to turn on a dime and shift their instruction the very next morning to make sure that they are accelerating and recuperating learning for all students. They open those sessions to all teachers in the district so that they can come and observe and use those very same practices when they go back to their own campuses the next day. And so we see slowly, step by step, these practices sharing across campuses. The charters are also learning from direct- managed schools. It is not a one-way sharing, but we very intentionally pair educators together. Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I have time for one more question, this one to Dr. McGriff. Can you share your views on the proliferation of virtual charter schools and, in particular, how these schools equitably serving--how are these schools equitably serving and meeting the needs of students with disabilities and English-language learners? Ms. McGriff. At the National Alliance, we are supportive of all models of charter schools, because we know that kids learn in lots of different ways and parents have different expectations for students. I cannot speak very specifically about the stats on special education or language learners in virtual schools, but in charters overall, there is not a disadvantage for special education students or English-language learners. And the research is pointing out that the students are equally represented when compared to traditional schools. I do also want to go back and say, we can't judge any school on a single factor. And what we tried to talk about today are the constellation of factors that make for a great school. Mr. Hinojosa. My time has run out. I yield back. Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Walberg? Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the panel for being here. It is really invigoration to hear students, parents, and teachers talked about more than just simply past history of educational status quo. Students needs primarily are what we ought to be concerned with. And, Dr. McGriff, it is good to see you. I remember as a member of the Michigan House Education Committee watching your all-too-short tenure in Detroit Public Schools. Ms. McGriff. Nice to see you. Mr. Walberg. As you were given all sorts of accolades from people who really cared about the product of the Detroit Public School system being given a chance to ultimately be educated to meet the needs in the real world and have the same opportunity that other school students had in other districts. I just wonder, had some of your innovative new course charting proposals in that great school system and a great city, that hopefully will return to its greatness, if that had been allowed to bring about its full results, what difference there might be in Detroit this very day. Ms. McGriff. Thank you. Mr. Walberg. We hope that as a result of the work that you and other panel members are doing that we see that change. Let me ask you, Dr. McGriff, you discussed in your testimony the efforts and the intentions of charter schools to create a collaboration between public charter schools and traditional public schools in order to share best practices to educate students, again, the needs of students versus the status quo desires of the educational establishment. What role do charter schools play in that collaboration? And more specifically, if you could expand on how they benefit traditional public schools? Ms. McGriff. I think the panelists have addressed that. I happen to be on the board of the Denver School of Science and Technology, and the example that was given for Cole Middle School as a way of sharing, but generally, when there are district charter collaborations, we have pointed out achievement first, for example, provides principal training for all the principals in the city, because their principal training program is considered to be that thoughtful. I know that DSST has put into place a really strong human capital initiative. They are also engaged in 100Kin10, which is an effort to raise 100,000 STEM teachers in urban areas, and those ideas through PD are shared. We also--for here in D.C., for example, there are a number of initiatives that are implemented in the charter school network that the district public schools will also implement. And I will give you an example. We talked about benchmarking today, and there is a benchmarking system that lots of charters use called achievement network, is used in the charter schools in D.C., but it is also used in the public schools. So there isn't this division. And sometimes schools have the same theme. People ask, why charter schools? Because parents want different kinds of schools. They want performing arts schools. They want science schools. They want Montessori schools. And often you may have a charter school with that theme and a public school with that--a traditional public school with the same theme, so they collaborate across instructional strategies and building programs. I can't think of a single idea where a charter--an innovative charter school and an innovative traditional public school could not collaborate if they chose to. Mr. Walberg. And that is the key, isn't it? The-- Ms. McGriff. It is. And another--I will give you another example. I happen to live in Milwaukee, and we have an initiative called Schools That Can Milwaukee. It is a collaborative of the highest-performing traditional public schools, highest-performing charter schools, and highest- performing publicly funded private schools. All you have to be to be a part of this network is to be high-performing. And the goal of the network is to bring 20,000 additional high- performing seats to the city by 2010. Mr. Walberg. What a great concept. What a great concept. In my remaining moments, Mr. Rosskamm, when looking at reform, are there any federal obstacles that we here can assist you in, in helping removing to make your success even better? Mr. Rosskamm. In Ohio, many of our obstacles are state obstacles. What we do desperately need--and I guess the legislation is before you--is funding to replicate what works. Innovation is an important part of the charter movement, and we need to continue to fund innovation, but once we have proven something, there is no greater return on investment than providing funds to replicate what is working. And we absolutely, desperately need your help to be able to continue to do that. Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Kline. Thank you. Mr. Bishop? Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you very much to the panel for your testimony and also for your work on behalf of our nation's students. I feel sort of like a voice in the wilderness here, but I just need to put this out there. The Elementary and Secondary Ed Act reauthorization that this committee passed freezes funding for Title I and IDEA for the next 5 fiscal years at the fiscal 2013 post-sequester levels. It also--that same bill-- suggests that the federal government should be providing financial support for the planning, program, design, and initial implementation of charter schools, and to expand the number of high-quality charter schools available to students across the nation. I am quoting from the bill. So my question is, we are going to freeze--if this committee's bill were to ever take on the force of law, we would freeze funding at admittedly inadequate levels, post- sequester levels, for fiscal year 2013, so we would carry forward a level of funding that is inadequate, and yet we would be funding at an increased level charter schools. And so my question to you is--and I will ask each of you to respond briefly--is that a good public policy choice? Should we really be reducing our support for the traditional programs of Title I and IDEA, and doing so, so as to increase--or as a potential consequence, increase the support for charter schools? Is that the right public policy choice for the federal government to make? And so I just put that out there as a question. Mr. Linzey. My reaction to that is, nobody that I know of in education wants to cut funding for Title I and IDEA. So I don't think that is a good policy to cut funding for special ed students and for Title I students, but my question to you back would be, where do you get your biggest bang for your buck, if you have limited dollars? Mr. Bishop. And that--see, that is where I am heading, also. Mr. Linzey. Right. Mr. Bishop. And we may be coming to a different conclusion, but 95 percent of our students are educated in public schools. And so I guess I would argue that is where you get the biggest bang for the buck. But you may have a dissenting opinion. Mr. Linzey. Yes. I think the data that I have seen, which is national data, CREDO Institute, is showing that charter schools are making significantly more gain than their traditional public schools. Mr. Bishop. I am going to push back on that a little bit. That data, that CREDO data, if you really look at it, what it really shows is that there are either no differences or infinitesimally small differences in performance of public school students versus charter school students. And so I guess--again, and this is not to knock charter schools. This is to question why it is we seem to be moving headlong in a support of charter schools at the expense of traditional public schools. Mr. Rosskamm. If I could, I would like to respectfully suggest that maybe that is the wrong question. In Cleveland-- Mr. Bishop. I am a member of Congress. Of course I have got to ask the wrong question-- [Laughter.] Mr. Rosskamm. But your privilege, of course. In Cleveland, our mayor has said that--to use his words, he is over that question. What he is interested in is supporting high-quality schools, both district and charter, and seeing a reduction in poor schools--and either turning around or doing something about the underperforming schools. And I want you to know, from a charter perspective, we need, desperately need those dollars for special-needs children. We take that obligation and that responsibility equally seriously and need those funds. Mr. Bishop. I guess where my concern is--and maybe--and I am maybe doing too much talking and not letting you answer, but I think you can probably make an argument that more money doesn't necessarily equate with quality. But I am not sure you can make an argument that if you continuously drain resources out of the public school system that is not going to result in diminished quality. And that is my concern. In New York, the way charter schools are funded is by basically taxing the sending district the tuition that they would normally receive from the student going to that school to the charter school, so they are getting hit both ways. And so my challenge is or my question is, is this really where we should be going? Or shouldn't we be increasing the size of the pie? If we are that committed to charter schools, shouldn't we be increasing the size of the pie, instead of slicing it differently? Mr. Rosskamm. Mr. Chairman, could I respond to that, as well? Mr. Bishop. Have I taken too long? Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Bishop. It is a great question, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Kline. A fine question. We will probably have a chance to pick that up later. And just for the record, in the Student Success Act, Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which not only passed the committee, but passed the floor, we did not cut a dime from IDEA. We didn't address special education. And I think I would agree with the gentleman that we as an institution, we as a country are not doing our job in increasing that money for special ed, but we did not cut it, just for the record. Dr. Bucshon, you are recognized. Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would like to say, you know, we could use your help in getting the United States Senate to bring their version of the bill to the U.S. Senate floor, maybe pass that, and then we can get to conference and work out our differences. With that said, Dr. McGriff, my question surrounds the number of hours kids spend in school and what charter schools across the country are doing with that. I mean, I think many of us know--and I have four kids, and I am not an educator, but I study the subject a lot, that other countries around the world, their children spend more time in the classroom than ours do, dramatically more time in the classroom. And I think we also know that lower socioeconomic class students, when they have long summer breaks, regress at a faster rate than students from higher socioeconomic populations, primarily, I think, probably from because of the lack of parental engagement and other factors. They are just trying to get by day-to-day. They don't have time to worry about these issues. So can you comment on maybe what charter schools--the trend in charter schools is across the country and hours in the classroom and maybe length of breaks that charter schools are doing? There are some schools that are going to year-round and how that might--if there is data out there that shows that that--in America, that works, and how that could spill over into--or the rest of our educational system, which admittedly, I think, in my view, is stuck in the past. Ms. McGriff. I think when we think about more time, we have to look at, more time doing what? And we also have to look at, what is the current developmental stage of the school? So if you look at charter schools that are launching and they are getting a new set of kids, they are going to have a very different approach to how to use time, where the extra time should be, than if you are looking at a CMO that has been in operation for 15 years and they have now developed a culture. So let's talk first about the really early-stage school. Generally, they will not open without having the kids who are coming to them the first year come to some type of summer school. They think that culture-building before they get in the room in September is an important thing to do. When you diagnose kids, and they are three and four grades behind, and they are in ninth grade, you are not going to catch them up unless you are doing after-school programs that you have to come if you don't do your homework. They are building in these kids the resiliency and the sense of responsibility and good use of time. And you are absolutely right. Low-income children regress every summer. So if you don't have--the programs are innovative. They are not just the traditional summer school programs. They have these kids going to college campuses, spending experiences on college to get them to know, college is for you, and you can be successful. Or they are sending them to STEM camp. So I think when people say more time and an extended day, they don't really look deeply into the innovations that--and it is not just charter schools. The great quality traditional public schools do exactly the same thing with time. I think what we are learning from the CMOs in our portfolio, that over time, as the--especially if the CMO has a feeder pattern K-12, they are now getting kids that are not so far behind, they are beginning to cut back the number of hours to be more consistent with what kids need. But that takes years of having kids that you have had since kindergarten now coming into your middle schools and your high schools. Mr. Bucshon. Yes. Ms. Whitehead-Bust, do you have any comments on that, about what you are doing in Denver as it relates to hours in the classroom and innovation as far as--as was pointed out by Dr. McGriff, effectively using the extra hours, if you are going to have the students there, how you can most effectively use that time? Ms. Whitehead-Bust. I would reiterate that it is not just more time, but more and better time. And so we are using the opportunity for expanded time to think about acceleration and recuperation of students simultaneously so that you are ensuring that your students who are struggling to meet your grade level proficiency standards have the opportunity to catch up, but simultaneously making sure we are not thinking about our standards as a ceiling. They are intended to be a floor. And so we have some students who need acceleration so that they can exceed those minimum standards, in addition to really focusing on the non-cognitive success factors that we know are essential for students to persist through college and careers, so working on opportunities to set goals to build a sense of values within a student culture that we know transcends critical thinking, collaboration skills, et cetera. We ask that our schools come forward with plans. In most cases, they are adding about 100 hours to their school year through a combination of extended day and extended year. They work in small cohorts, again, so they are sharing best ideas and best promising practices across schools. Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Chairman Kline. Thank you. Mr. Polis? Mr. Polis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the chair and the ranking member for bringing before us such excellent witnesses on an important topic. This hearing is really helping to showcase the impact of public charter schools as a tool within public education. I think there has been a great discussion of charter schools as a strategy to boost academic achievement for all students. And we are particularly thrilled that the committee has called this hearing. As the founder of two innovative public charter schools myself, one currently chartered through Denver Public Schools, the Academy of Urban Learning, the other, the New America School in New Mexico and Colorado, with five campuses, I have really been in the practice of founding and, in the case of New America School, running a superintendent, a charter school, I really got to see firsthand how we were able to use the flexibility afforded to us by our authorizer to meet the learning needs of the kids that came in our door. Public charter schools across the country are demonstrating time and time again that where a child lives, their ZIP Code, their economic background, their ethnicity need not determine his or her educational outcomes. In my home state of Colorado, public charter schools are developing innovative strategies, attracting great talent to the room, districts like DPS, who we heard from Ms. Whitehead-Bust, charter schools are serving as laboratories of innovation and are very much part of the district, in terms of sharing best practices. One of the frustrations that I have sometimes is when people at the district level or elsewhere say, oh, it is us versus them. Well, Denver Public Schools is an excellent example of a district that very much views charters as part of us, as it should be. It is part of the public education system. And I am not for traditional schools, charter schools, neighborhood schools, magnet schools, per se, but I am for great schools. And no matter what the governance model, we want to make sure that there is a great public school for kids to go to. And sometimes we get caught up in these arguments of, oh, it should be--they should run it or this adult should run it or it should be part of this or part of that. That is not what makes an impact for the kids. What makes an impact for the kids are great teachers in the classroom, with great school leadership, enough learning time, and we have proven time and time again that works, and that is good news for public education in our country. And we have had many great schools testifying, including some who testified here today, like Breakthrough Schools and Clayton Valley, truly great schools. Now, the charter school program is a critical way that the federal government partners with state and public charter schools. Many, if not most charter schools might not exist today if it were not for this charter school program. Before any of the state or local funding even kicks in, charter schools have expenses. And it is absolutely critical that the charter school program allow charter schools and innovative schools to get off the ground. In addition, charter school program rewards states with strong authorizing practices, provides incentives to ensure that laws allow public charter schools to thrive, seed the growth and expansion of excellent charter schools that defy expectations for kids every year. My All-STAR Act, which I introduced with Representative Petri and many other members of this committee, would improve this program by investing in high-quality charter schools, reward states with laws that afford additional freedoms for charter schools, ensure that authorizers don't hand out charters like candy, but have a thoughtful process around making sure that the applicants can deliver on the model. I want to get to my questions. My first is for Ms. Whitehead-Bust. Of course, thrilled to highlight the outstanding work that Denver Public Schools near my district has done to improve outcomes for our most at-risk kids. I want to talk about how being a portfolio district that values different governance models--she mentioned innovation schools. That is a concept in Colorado. It is kind of like a charter school-lite concept, where it is part of the district, it is kind of a hybrid between the two. Some states have those, as well. How has being a portfolio district given you additional tools as a district to expand and replicate high-quality schools to ensure that more kids have access to high-quality schools? Ms. Whitehead-Bust. I appreciate the question and the focus on equity and access for all kids across our system. I think as a portfolio district, we have had the opportunity to define publicly and transparently the criteria that we use both to open new schools, to support all schools within our portfolio, regardless of governance type, and to have an assertive stance on closing schools who aren't getting it done for kids, in particular our kids who most need high-quality options. Mr. Polis. And let me feed you one more question with the limited time. Talk a little bit about what Denver has done to ensure that all schools are serving with special needs, and especially severe special-needs students. Ms. Whitehead-Bust. In Denver, our charters have signed up to help serve a proportional percentage both of our English- language learners and of our special education students. We have led the nation recently in opening center-based programs within our charter schools--we have about 10 today--to serve our most severe needs, special ed students, and in addition to stepping up to provide equity of access for those students, they are helping us innovate. How do we discover more inclusive models as an example? How do we ensure that expectations and culture are appropriate for all students? So we are learning together in that endeavor. Mr. Polis. So many more questions, Mr. Chair, but I will yield back. Chairman Kline. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Rokita? Mr. Rokita. I thank the chairman. I thank the witnesses. It has been great testimony. I want to start off by associating with Congressman Polis' remarks. I think he is exactly correct. I mean, who here shouldn't be for great schools, no matter what the governance structure? And this idea that money is being siphoned off or compartmentalized or whatever I think goes to--I think it was the mayor of Cleveland's point. I am over that question. I am over it. I mean, if the product of competition is the movement of some funds, you know, I think that, in fact, can be a very healthy thing, ultimately. Competition is a good thing. It is good in every other part of our lives. And to the extent there is competition for the effective and efficient teaching of our greatest asset, which is our children, so be it. In that vein, I would simply, again, state for the record it is kind of been an ongoing debate around here, but the fact is that, since 1970, at the federal level, we have increased spending on education 300 percent. And my data shows that there has been little or no commensurate improvement, however you want to measure improvement. It certainly doesn't match the kind of money we are spending, so I don't think we have a money problem. And if any of you differ with that, I have heard some comments about, oh, we definitely need the money. And I understand that. But if any of you believe--and I would like this for the record that pushing more money at this without change in governance structure, without doing something differently, like you all are doing, you know, I would like to know that opinion. Anybody? Let the record reflect, no one is taking that bait. Mr. Linzey. Well, no-- Mr. Rokita. Except for Mr. Linzey. Mr. Linzey. Does there need to be more funding? My answer is, for innovative schools, yes, there needs to be more funding, because we are limited by the amount of dollars given to charter schools-- Mr. Rokita. But from a macro standpoint. Mr. Linzey. From a macro standpoint-- Mr. Rokita. Should we increase another 50 percent? We have already increased funding 300 percent since 1970. Mr. Linzey. Right. And I would say, for those good organizations, those innovative and effective organizations, if we can get whatever monies there are to them so they can do the work that is proving to be successful, we need to do that. Whether you want to say more dollars or--I don't know how to take dollars away from current groups. Mr. Rokita. Thank you, Mr. Linzey. How do you measure success? Mr. Linzey. How do I measure success? Mr. Rokita. Yes, in your last statement. Mr. Linzey. Ultimately, it is going to be jobs. And then what is your key to getting kids to jobs? It is going to be literacy skills, college readiness, and what we are moving towards in the common core standards. That is--but the ultimate proof of success is, are they employable? Mr. Rokita. Has the charter school concept been around long enough to prove success under how you define it, Mrs. Keegan? Mrs. Keegan. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, absolutely, it has been around long enough to prove success. And I think there has never been a more exciting time to go into public education because of this, because educators are at the helm of this, because they are bringing their own answers. You have got two great examples here of the school leadership that is out there now, and it is providing a different path. So I think in the future, funding ought to be about individual students and follow them to schools that work in the public sector. We ought to be very concerned that there is enough money that is equitably accessed by students, regardless of which school they choose, if it is an exceptional school, which is what I think Mr. Linzey has been saying, that we should be about the businesses of accelerating what is demonstrably excellent out there, because we got a lot of demand sitting in the country for it. Mr. Rokita. Thank you. Anyone else want to add to that? Ms. McGriff. Yes, I just wanted--may I jump in, just quickly? Mr. Rokita. Dr. McGriff, yep. Ms. McGriff. One, the pot of money is what exists, but there needs to be equitable funding for charter schools. Charter schools currently operate on about 80 percent of what traditional public schools get. It is very seldom that we get equal funding, so that is an issue. The second issue for me, I need to have young people who are not going to live in poverty. So it is not to me just a job. I know if I--and the CMOs that I work with in charter schools are wanting kids to graduate, go to college, because they reduce by 50 percent the likelihood that their own families will live in poverty. So we have a very high success bar for the schools that we work with. Mr. Rokita. Excellent. I don't think you are saying anything different than Mr. Linzey, in my--from what I heard. Mr. Rosskamm. Could I also comment-- Mr. Rokita. Mr. Rosskamm, for the record. Mr. Rosskamm.--and try and make this real in some sense in my limited experience? The wonderful teachers and educators that I have the privilege of working with are getting spectacular results, the best results in our state. We have not just closed the achievement gap; we have reversed the achievement gap. And yet our teachers are receiving less than-- are working at a 20 percent discount from teachers in the district. We have things, needs for our children, extracurriculars, co-curriculars, programming we would love to do that we just cannot afford the additional staff because of inequitable funding that it would take to do those things. So the dollars are very real. Mr. Rokita. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, my time is expired, and I didn't even get to ask the questions that I intended to ask. Thank you. Chairman Kline. Thank you. Mr. Grijalva? Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just follow up, Mr. Rosskamm, on the point that you just made, the 80/20 and the 20 percent disparity that occurs in public charter schools relative to public. With equitable funding, as you mentioned, would come--do you see with that equitable funding also coming the idea of public charter schools providing transportation, extracurricular, and you mentioned pay, salary issues? Is that what you mean by that? Mr. Rosskamm. Among the many things we would like to do for our children, yes. Mr. Grijalva. Well, my example in Arizona, which progressive as it is, does have some issues, the extra money being asked by the public charter schools for enhancement of the 80/20 split comes out of the budget of the is currently the regular public school system. Do you see that as an equitable way to do that? Mr. Rosskamm. Forgive me, but I actually see that as a false issue, at least in Ohio. Mr. Grijalva. Well, it is for-- Mr. Rosskamm. Let me try and explain my-- Mr. Grijalva. Okay, I have got another question. Mr. Rosskamm.--explain my response. The state-- Mr. Grijalva. I have only got 5 minutes, so make it quick. Mr. Rosskamm. Yes, the accounting--and the money comes directly to us. But the way it is accounted for in our state, the district feels like they are losing money because on paper it is transferred through the district. It never goes there. Mr. Grijalva. Okay. For public charters, the financial situation for that public charter, is that proprietary information to the charter or to Breakthrough? Or is that public information that schools are required to provide? Mr. Rosskamm. We are public schools, and we are transparent and share that information. Mr. Grijalva. Mrs. Keegan, it is good to see you again. Mrs. Keegan. Good to see you, Congressman. Mr. Grijalva. Let me ask about authorizing, because our state has, what, about 605 charters, seven authorizers. California has 1,067, maybe more, 314 authorizers. And the question of closure came up and failing public charter schools, how you deal with that very tough situation. Based on that, do you think there has to be a cap on charter schools, number one? And number two, authorizers having this other governance, are they also--they have responsibility for evaluation, oversight? And shouldn't there be an enhanced requirement for that authorizing process? Because it is kind of subjective between states right now, as I see it. Mrs. Keegan. Mr. Chairman-- Mr. Grijalva. And seven having that full responsibility for 605 charters begs the question. Mrs. Keegan. Yes, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Grijalva, I appreciate the question. I think there does need to be a higher standard. And the state board for charter schools, which is the primary authorizer, as you know, in Arizona, does have a much higher standard and is a star member of NACSA, thank God, or I wouldn't be able to talk about them. So we are looking--as you know, Congressman, we are looking at about 40 schools in Arizona that probably will be closed because of those high standards, that is right. Mr. Grijalva. Quick follow up. Do you think, as we go through this--you know, the public charters and charters in general are founded on the premise of public--traditional public schools are failing. I mean, that is the genesis of the movement. Having said that, so that you believe there is a federal role in ensuring that states employ quality standards for charter schools or not? Mrs. Keegan. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Grijalva, just for the record, that was never my intention, and I helped write the law in 1994, not the premise that traditional public schools were failing, but the premise that all public schools were not good enough and that we needed more educators to be able to come directly into our education market and provide what they knew. So to that extent, I think we have done a great job in Arizona and nationwide, so I don't think we are at a point where we know exactly what needs to happen in terms of governance for all public schools, and I certainly think public charter schools are helping us learn. Mr. Grijalva. Okay, thank you. Ms. McGriff, my question is, who is accountable for at-risk students that you mentioned in your statement, kids with disabilities, English learners, in a charter school? Is it that individual school? Is it the authorizing body? Is it both? Who has the ultimate accountability if there is going to be--or is there a federal oversight role in terms of what the benchmarks for that accountability should be? Ms. McGriff. The first--the contract is with the authorizer, so the authorizer does establish the expectations for serving all kids and will terminate the contract if that is not done. There are requirements that you must meet from the federal government, and there are also requirements from the state. And so the oversight is-- Mr. Grijalva. It doesn't contradict the notion of flexibility? Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Thompson? Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you to all the witnesses here on this panel. I want to start with Mr. Rosskamm. In your testimony, you mentioned that a Web site for families is being unveiled today. Family engagement and education I think is incredibly important. Last July, I introduced the Family Engagement Education Act, and I wanted to just check and see, can you tell us a little more about that and how it is going to help or propose that it will help improve parent engagement in all schools? Mr. Rosskamm. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. We are kind of excited in Cleveland that just 2 weeks ago, we launched a new Web site as part of our Transformation Alliance, which is a public-private nonprofit body appointed by the mayor that includes district leaders, charter leaders, teachers, parents, nonprofits, and corporate representatives. And collectively, we are developing a process in Cleveland to evaluate the performance of all public schools in Cleveland, district and charter, and we are also receiving input from parents and families, and then we have put all that information, including state ratings, statements from the schools themselves, on a Web site that is available to parents so that parents can make better choices for their kids. Mr. Thompson. Very good. Dr. McGriff, I mean, I happen to believe that one of the most important aspects of charter schools are that they are laboratories of innovation within education. But I am not real sure how well we are doing of closing that loop of--because I hear all kinds of great things that occur in charter schools, but I think there are some bureaucracies at times, some lack of flexibility, of really fulfilling what a charter school should be for, of determining these innovations and rolling it out so that every child benefits from it. So in your testimony, though, you stated that one of the original tenets of the charter school movement was to ensure the transfer of knowledge and best practices between traditional public schools and the public charter schools. Can you tell us, how is the National Alliance assisting those efforts? Ms. McGriff. Well, the National--thank you--the National Alliance has been involved in a number of issues. One, first of all, is collecting best practices and the research and sharing it. We also sponsor the National Charter School Conference that has over 4,000 people who attend. You can get information on best practices from our Web site. There is a daily e-mail that goes out about charter innovation that--if you don't like daily, you can get weekly updates. There are toolkits. We are partnering with other organizations. We work very closely with each of the state associations to make sure that the work that our individual state associations are doing, we know about that nationally and we spread that. We work with states to write strong charter legislation or to improve weak charter legislation, because without good legislation, you are not going to be able to share and innovate. The work that you have done with the federal law also allows the most innovative of our CMOs to replicate. And there are a number of cities that are just begging these CMOs to come and to start their work. But I want to just say quickly that in replicating, each of those CMOs are innovating. Replication to them does not mean that I am going to take the first school that I opened and open it 20 times exactly the same way. I am constantly improving the model so that I can accelerate performance for students. Mr. Thompson. Very good. In the time I have left, I was just curious, for each of the panelists, or as far as we go until the light changes, anyways, we have that red light, you know, in your experiences, you know, what is the one innovation you have seen that has worked remarkably in a charter school, because you have had the flexibility to do that with, that you think if--that we should provide the flexibility to push it out into traditional public schools? Mrs. Keegan. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, I would say, teachers in charge. I think the best schools we see, it is teachers hiring teachers. The English Department is hiring the English Department. The profession owns that school, and I think it is a fabulous reminder that schooling is always about teaching. Mr. Linzey. I would like to just say more time, more quality time on task in the school day itself, in addition, outside the traditional school day. The charter schools I have worked with really make an emphasis on not wasting time, engaging kids in high-quality instruction, and then for the kids that are most needy, extending that instruction oftentimes to as many as 240 days a year to close that achievement gap, using Saturdays, summers, and things like that. Those are key processes. And a third thing I would say is using research- based technology programs for intervention so kids can access 24/7 to learn. Mr. Thompson. Okay. Thank you, Chairman. Chairman Kline. Mr. Scott? Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I tend to agree with my colleague from New York about charter schools. If you are having more money going into education, to siphon it off to charter schools and not to try to beef up the public schools, where 95 percent of the students are going to be going, I think diminishes the opportunities for those virtually all who are in public schools. I also agree with the--my understanding of the research is that there is essentially no difference between what happens in charter schools and public schools. You hear all the successes in charter schools. You don't hear the failures, where you tried. So I guess my question is, when you have eliminated all the regulations and give all the flexibility, what happens to the students that get relegated to a charter school that didn't work? Ms. McGriff. I can answer. I can give you an example here in Washington, D.C. A few months ago, the chartering authority identified a school to--we call it re-chartering. And instead of--because the school had over almost 700 kids in the building, there wasn't a notion of just close the school and put the kids on the street or, you know, fine the school, if you can. They contacted a high-performing CMO in the city, KIPP DC, and the board of that school engaged KIPP DC in the management of the school. Mr. Scott. If you don't have the performance standards and the other regulations, how do you determine that it is not performing? Mrs. Keegan. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, public charter schools have performance standards. They are bound to the same state academic program and assessment programs that every public school is, and-- Mr. Scott. Well, what regulations do--are there not--if there is flexibility, what regulations do they not have to comply with? Mrs. Keegan. Well, they don't have to comply with the traditional hiring and firing practices. They don't comply with--that is probably the biggest one, that they are outside of those contracts. I would say, in the analysis of what money goes to public schools, public charter schools are public schools. When Title I is cut, it is cut for public charter schools, so all kids in public schools share that money. Mr. Scott. If you give the flexibility in hiring, you will have some much better decisions at some schools and some much worse decisions at others. People hire fraternity brothers and neighbors and relatives and all that. If you don't have the standards, what happens when you end up--what happens when you don't have the good performance? Mrs. Keegan. Go ahead. Ms. Whitehead-Bust. You are highlighting the importance of quality authorizing. So in Denver, as an example, we have closed 20 schools across governance types in the past 5 years. Ten of those 20 were charter schools, because they were not meeting our accountability expectations. While we are able to grant flexibilities on the inputs, hiring practices, curriculum, we grant no flexibility on the outcomes. We believe that all students deserve access to the highest-quality outcomes and hold all schools, regardless of governance types, to that same accountability metrics. Mr. Scott. Now you are talking about public charter schools, where the governance is public governing boards. Is that right? Ms. Whitehead-Bust. All of our Colorado charter schools are public charter schools. Mr. Scott. And how do you get on the governing board of the governing body of the charter schools? Ms. Whitehead-Bust. So the boards are self-created. Although they are reviewed for quality, it is one of the most important components of our quality framework, because we grant contracts to boards, not to school leaders. And so part of our robust rubric and metrics that we look at to grant charter schools looks deeply at the composition of that charter school, their policies, their practices, and their expertise. Mr. Scott. Are they subject to the same regulations as a traditional public school? Ms. Whitehead-Bust. They are an independent not-for-profit governing board, quite different than the publicly elected governing board that oversees Denver public school writ large. Mr. Scott. Do they get to impact the composition of the student body directly or indirectly? Do they have the opportunity to expel, for example? Ms. Whitehead-Bust. I am proud that in Denver we have led the nation having a unified school choice system that is actually managed by the same central team for 100 percent of our schools, charter or otherwise. So all entry and exit decisions related to students are made using the same criteria by a department that operates under the Denver public school system. Mr. Scott. Well, yes, but does the school decide who is expelled and who isn't expelled? Ms. Whitehead-Bust. They do not. Mr. Scott. Do they have any direct or indirect impact on admissions by location or transportation? Ms. Whitehead-Bust. They do not, because that system is managed as a unified school choice system. So I as a mom of three daughters get to fill out a lottery form. I happen to have one daughter in a charter school, one in an innovation school, and one in a direct-managed school. Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Messer? Mr. Messer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the panelists for being here on this very important issue. Mr. Chairman, I have a letter that I would like to submit for the record. It is from the Center for Education Reform dealing on this topic. [The information follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Kline. Without objection. Mr. Messer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just couldn't be more excited about the topic that we are here to discuss today in charter schools. It gets at the fundamental promise of America that every kid in America should have a chance to go to a great school. And the truth is, in America, we fall woefully short of that standard. Lots of kids go to great public schools, but no kid in America ought to have to go to a school where they won't have a chance to succeed. And we need to work in public policy at finding the right school for every child. I am a former president and CEO of an organization called School Choice Indiana. I believe strongly in charter schools. I believe in traditional public school choice. I believe in private school choice. I believe in home-schooling options for some kids, as well. You know, we have--the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence promises all of us a God-given right to pursue happiness. And in modern America, that means we are all promised by God an opportunity to succeed. And that promise isn't real in today's America unless you have a quality education. And that is the stakes of what we are here to talk about today. It is interesting to hear on the other side of the aisle a sort of litany of the myths of these--of public schools and-- I mean, of charter schools, and so I would like to go through a few of them with you. In the interest of time, I am just going to answer the first one, but I hope you can all nod in agreement. I noticed that Dr. McGriff's organization is called the Public Charter School Organizations, and all charter schools in America are public schools, so many of the false choices that are presented here are a question between, what are we going to do with public schools and charter schools? Well, the reality is, they are all public schools, and they are schools that are serving kids. Secondly, there is a lot of conversations about, well, charter schools aren't accountable, the question of, you know, well, what happens when they don't work? In my experience--and I would ask anyone on the panel to comment on this--charter schools are far more accountable than public schools. I mean, there are far more incidences of charter schools that--some work incredibly, others have had less success. When they don't work, they close. There are school after school after school across the country in public schools, when if they are not meeting the standards for a child, frankly, the answer is to throw more money there and keep sending kids. Could anybody comment on the difference in accountability between charter schools and traditional public schools? Mrs. Keegan. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, thank you for the question. There is a direct accountability, in that if parents and students don't want to go to that school, they don't exist. So we haven't even spoken about that accountability. Of course they have the same requirements to meet standards, and they usually set them higher, and the governing boards or the authorizing boards that put them in business are setting those standards higher. But those schools have to convince families that they are worthy of their kids. So nobody is assigned to a public charter school. Somebody has to make a choice. That is direct accountability. Mr. Messer. And virtually every state I am aware of that has a robust charter school program, far more charter schools are closed than any public schools. Fair? Is that right? Ms. Whitehead-Bust. In Denver, we negotiate performance- based contracts with all of our charter schools, and we have found in the past 2 years, when four charter schools have been closed, three of those four have surrendered their charter because they understand that they are not meeting the quality bar that we have mutually negotiated. Mr. Messer. Yes. In line with that, I mean, another topic you hear is, well, you know, the charter schools are performing well, but they are creaming the best kids out of the system. In my experience, in talking to education reformers who are inspired to be educators that change lives, frankly, they seek the toughest kids in the toughest populations. And my understanding is that the statistics are that charter schools, by and large, are serving a much more disadvantaged population than the public schools generally. Could a couple of you comment on that? Ms. McGriff. I would agree. And I tried to point out the demographics and the diversity of the student population in my opening remarks, so I won't repeat them, but the research clearly shows that the demographics in charter schools are much more diverse and poorer than traditional schools. Mrs. Keegan. Mr. Chairman, I would just add to that, that I would invite people who say that to walk the hot streets of Phoenix in the summer when the schools in the urban core who are going in to try to rescue these kids are trying to convince families that they will be worthy of their kids, day after day after day, trying to make that argument, because this is something families haven't seen before, and they have to convince families. There is nothing akin to creaming kids that goes on in these quality schools that are going into the urban core where the kids are least served. Mr. Messer. Oh, I went from yellow to red. Chairman Kline. You did, sir. The gentleman's time has expired. Mrs. Davis? Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all of for being here. And I am from San Diego. I have seen some extraordinary examples of charter schools, but I also question the extent to which they really influence other schools in the area. We know that, as you have said, I mean, a lot of charter schools close, so, you know, if you start saying, well, how many--you know, what is the percentage of ones that continue to go on and be exceptional and what are the percentage that actually, you know, don't do so well or are just not able to make the grade? The good thing is that perhaps they are no longer there, but the reality is that they leave a lot of students who might need a whole lot of remedial help during that period as they make a transition into what is often another public school in their community. So what are we doing to address those issues? Have we found a good way--do you think that actually there is any responsibility on the charter school or those who put it together or the school district to do the kind of intense remediation that is required to help those students who actually weren't getting what they should have during that period of time? Mr. Rosskamm. So, you know, we are extraordinarily proud, particularly some of our middle schools that take kids in the fifth or sixth grade that are far behind. We sweat blood, sweat and tears to get those kids caught up through incredibly dedicated teachers and getting the kids to buy into their own futures and their own learning. But I will admit that in Ohio, notwithstanding the influence of the national authorizers and the progress we are making, we don't have the authorizing standards we should have. That is changing, and that is a good thing, and it needs to continue to change. Mrs. Davis. Is there a federal role in that? Should there be? Mr. Rosskamm. That, as I understand it, is more of a state role and a role in terms of the responsibility and the oversight of the authorizers themselves. Our good authorizers maintain very high standards, and there is new legislation, state legislation, that will prevent authorizers with a bad track record from opening more schools. Mrs. Davis. And in many cases, those are local school boards, correct, in a number of cases who make some of the final decisions about the charter schools? Mr. Rosskamm. In Ohio, typically, they are not. Mrs. Davis. They are not. Oh, okay. Mr. Rosskamm. Typically not. Mrs. Davis. Okay. Yes, all right. Thank you. Mr. Rosskamm, I know in your testimony earlier you talked about the fact that your schools were able to get federal funding to replicate and to be a design, really, for the community, and that took some federal funding. Could you have moved with that replication without that federal funding? How critical was that? Mr. Rosskamm. It was absolutely critical and continues to be critical. There is a tremendous amount--you know, I already explained that our initial per student funding is less, and in the planning year and in the first couple years of a new school, we lose serious dollars. And if we did not have that support, we just simply could not move forward. And we lose those dollars in part because we are so concerned about getting the culture right that we start small, and then when we get it right, we continue to build. But as basic economics says, if you have fewer children in the seats, you are generating less revenue. Until we fill the building, we are not covering our overhead. Mrs. Davis. So would you suggest that there is some federal role there in terms of looking to those programs that actually--like Breakthrough, that actually have a really strong track record, but couldn't on their own replicate their programs? Mr. Rosskamm. I think the best return on investment that we can have is to take something that is working. After all the innovation, we have some winners, we have some losers, but once we have identified things that are working, it is a fabulous return on investment to replicate what is working. Mrs. Davis. Thank you. Ms. McGriff, could you just speak to the idea of the Department of Education is updating guidance to allow charter schools to use weighted lotteries? And is that something that you think is a good idea? How would you see that play out? Because we do know that certainly charters go out and do a lot of recruiting, but on the other hand, there are some particular needs that charters have to develop a diverse body of students, and that is important. Ms. McGriff. This is one of my favorite questions and favorite things, and I am so happy that the federal government has decided that schools like Denver School of Science and Technology, that was designed to have a student body that is socially and racially integrated and a focus on STEM and college can now get funds from the federal government to support their work. Mrs. Davis. Would you all agree with that? Ms. Whitehead-Bust. We second that appreciation. [Laughter.] Mrs. Davis. The rest of you, as well? Do you use that? And, I mean, is it an issue for you? Mr. Rosskamm. Absolutely. Mrs. Davis. Okay. Thank you. Chairman Kline. The gentlelady's time has expired. All time has expired. I want to thank the witnesses and yield some time to Mr. Scott for any closing remarks that he may have. Mr. Scott. Well, only to say that a lot of this can be done on the traditional setting. When you have a lottery and decide who can get a good education and who can't, that raises additional questions. Of course, if you get in one of these good schools, you are a lot better off. But overall, what we have found is that charter schools have not done better. A lot of them fail. And students are stuck in those, as well as some of the good schools. So we need to improve all the schools, and I think that sentiment has been made. I think we need to do everything we can to get there. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Kline. As is so often the case, the gentleman who is sitting here and I disagree on some things, but on one thing I think we all agree, that we need to do better for our kids on the whole. And I happen to think that the advances made in charter schools, going way back to my home state, and now have been really, really significant and have helped lift all those boats. So, again, I want to thank all the witnesses. Excellent testimony. Thanks for engaging with us. There being no further business, we are adjourned. [Questions submitted or the record and their responses follow:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] [Whereupon, at 12:31 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] [all]