    [House Hearing, 111 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

        H.R. 4330, THE ALL STUDENTS ACHIEVING THROUGH REFORM ACT OF 2009

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                              EDUCATION AND LABOR

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

               HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 24, 2010

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 111-46

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor

                           Available on the Internet:
          http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html

                                   ----------
                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    54-829 PDF                       WASHINGTON : 2010

    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
    DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
    Washington, DC 20402-0001

                        COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR

                      GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman

    Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice       John Kline, Minnesota,
        Chairman                           Senior Republican Member
    Donald M. Payne, New Jersey          Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
    Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey        Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
    Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia      California
    Lynn C. Woolsey, California          Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
    Ruben Hinojosa, Texas                Michael N. Castle, Delaware
    Carolyn McCarthy, New York           Mark E. Souder, Indiana
    John F. Tierney, Massachusetts       Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
    Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio             Judy Biggert, Illinois
    David Wu, Oregon                     Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
    Rush D. Holt, New Jersey             Joe Wilson, South Carolina
    Susan A. Davis, California           Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
    Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona            Tom Price, Georgia
    Timothy H. Bishop, New York          Rob Bishop, Utah
    Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania             Brett Guthrie, Kentucky
    David Loebsack, Iowa                 Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
    Mazie Hirono, Hawaii                 Tom McClintock, California
    Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania          Duncan Hunter, California
    Phil Hare, Illinois                  David P. Roe, Tennessee
    Yvette D. Clarke, New York           Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania
    Joe Courtney, Connecticut
    Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
    Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
    Jared Polis, Colorado
    Paul Tonko, New York
    Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
    Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
        Northern Mariana Islands
    Dina Titus, Nevada
    Judy Chu, California

                         Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director
                     Barrett Karr, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on February 24, 2010................................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Cassidy, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Louisiana.........................................     5
            Prepared statement of....................................     6
        Castle, Hon. Michael N., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of Delaware......................................     9
        Ehlers, Hon. Vernon J., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Michigan, prepared statement of...................    71
        Kildee, Hon. Dale E., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Michigan..........................................     6
        Miller, Hon. George, Chairman, Committee on Education and
          Labor......................................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     3
        Polis, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Colorado..........................................     7
            Prepared statement of....................................     8
        Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby,'' a Representative in Congress
          from the State of Virginia, submission for the record:
            Report, ``Choice Without Equity: Charter School
              Segregation and the Need for Civil Rights Standards,''
              Internet address to....................................    54

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Ahearn, Eileen M., Ph.D., project director, National
          Association of State Directors of Special Education........    27
            Prepared statement of....................................    29
        Hehir, Thomas, Ed.D., professor, Harvard Graduate School of
          Education..................................................    18
            Prepared statement of....................................    20
        Lake, Robin J., associate director, Center on Reinventing
          Public Education...........................................    15
            Prepared statement of....................................    17
        Moskowitz, Eva, Ph.D., CEO and founder, Harlem Success
          Academy....................................................    12
            Prepared statement of....................................    13
        Richmond, Greg, president and CEO, the National Association
          of Charter School Authorizers..............................    23
            Prepared statement of....................................    25
        Young, Caprice, president and CEO, KC Distance Learning;
          board chairman, National Alliance for Public Charter
          Schools....................................................    30
            Prepared statement of....................................    32

        H.R. 4330, THE ALL STUDENTS ACHIEVING THROUGH REFORM ACT OF 2009

                                  ----------

                          Wednesday, February 24, 2010

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                        Committee on Education and Labor

                                 Washington, DC

                                  ----------

        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in room
    2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. George Miller
    [chairman of the committee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Miller, Kildee, Scott, Hinojosa,
    McCarthy, Tierney, Wu, Holt, Davis, Loebsack, Hirono, Altmire,
    Hare, Clarke, Shea-Porter, Polis, Sablan, Titus, Chu, Petri,
    Castle, Ehlers, Biggert, McMorris Rodgers, and Cassidy.
        Staff present: Tylease Alli, Hearing Clerk; Andra Belknap,
    Press Assistant; Calla Brown, Staff Assistant, Education; Jody
    Calemine, General Counsel; Jamie Fasteau, Senior Education
    Policy Advisor; Denise Forte, Director of Education Policy;
    David Hartzler, Systems Administrator; Fred Jones, Junior
    Legislative Associate, Education; Sharon Lewis, Senior
    Disability Policy Advisor; Sadie Marshall, Chief Clerk; Bryce
    McKibbon, Staff Assistant; Charmaine Mercer, Senior Education
    Policy Advisor; Alex Nock, Deputy Staff Director; Lillian Pace,
    Policy Advisor, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and
    Secondary Education; Helen Pajcic, Education Policy Associate;
    Kristina Peterson, Legislative Fellow, Education; Rachel
    Racusen, Communications Director; Alexandria Ruiz,
    Administrative Assistant to Director of Education Policy;
    Melissa Salmanowitz, Press Secretary; Dray Thorne, Senior
    Systems Administrator; Daniel Weiss, Special Assistant to the
    Chairman; Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director; Stephanie Arras,
    Minority Legislative Assistant; Kirk Boyle, Minority General
    Counsel; Casey Buboltz, Minority Coalitions and Member Services
    Coordinator; Alexa Marrero, Minority Communications Director;
    Susan Ross, Minority Director of Education and Human Services
    Policy; Mandy Schaumburg, Minority Education Policy Counsel;
    and Linda Stevens, Minority Chief Clerk/Assistant to the
    General Counsel.
        Chairman Miller [presiding]. A quorum being present, the
    committee will come to order. I want to welcome all the members
    and welcome our witnesses today. Thank you for taking the time
    to join us and to give us the benefit of your expertise and
    experience.
        And I will recognize myself for an opening statement, and
    then recognize Mr. Cassidy, and then Mr. Kildee, and you have--
    Mr. Castle, I guess, will be here by then, right? We hope.
        Today we will examine how charter schools can be used as a
    tool to drive innovation in our schools. Specifically, we will
    discuss legislation introduced by Rep. Polis that would expand
    access to outstanding charter schools.
        This hearing kicks off a larger conversation about how we
    can educate our way to a better economy, as Secretary Duncan
    says, by overhauling our nation's primary education law.
        Last week, Congressmen Kline, Kildee, Castle and I
    announced that we plan to do this overhaul in an inclusive and
    transparent way. We are starting by holding hearings and asking
    for input of all stakeholders who want to make meaningful
    improvements in the law.
        I strongly believe that the bipartisanship will be the key
    to getting this rewrite done. Our committee has a tradition of
    working across party lines when it comes to education.
        Nine years ago, we came together for the historic way to
    write the latest version of the law No Child Left Behind. No
    Child Left--No Child brought powerful reforms to our schools.
        We made clear then--we made it clear that it was time to
    end the inequities and low standards that had come to exemplify
    schools in this country. We made it impossible for schools to
    mask the fact that too many students were falling behind.
        This focus on transparency and accountability has forced us
    to acknowledge some hard truths. It has shown how far we have
    to go to get our schools and students where they need to be.
    But we also know that the law didn't get everything right.
        We all agree, along with teachers, parents, administrators
    and many others, that there needs to be significant changes.
    Now, with our economy in need of serious rebuilding, we cannot
    afford to wait to fix it.
        It is time to realize our vision of world-class schools
    that prepare every student to compete in our global economy. To
    get there, we need to be open to bold ideas to disrupt our
    current system.
        We have to pay attention to what is working in our schools
    and give other schools the tools to learn from those successes.
    Time and again, we have seen this approach work. Innovation and
    creativity lead to effective reforms. Effective reforms
    transform schools and communities.
        One of the best examples of high--is our high-performing
    charter schools. These schools are proving that low-income and
    minority students can succeed when given the right tools,
    challenges and learning environments.
        There are now more than 1.5 million children enrolled at
    nearly 5,000 public charters across the U.S. In some of these
    areas, students were stuck in struggling schools where 70
    percent of the students drop out. The opportunity promised by
    quality charter schools was their only chance at a better
    education.
        Take the Green Dot public schools. Green Dot schools serve
    students in the highest need in Los Angeles and South Bronx,
    where only about 4 percent of the kids graduate from college.
    Eighty percent of Green Dot students graduate, and 80 percent
    of their graduates are accepted to a 4-year college.
        Green Dot schools have their own teachers unions affiliated
    with the National Education Association and the American
    Federation of Teachers. Their job security is based not just on
    seniority, but how well they are teaching students. These
    partnerships show that teachers unions can help lead the way to
    building successful charter schools.
        Successful charter schools are also welcoming
    accountability and data. They value strong principals and
    teachers. They support longer school hours and more school days
    to help students catch up. They engage parents as active
    participants in their school communities.
        These are strategies that we should be paying attention to,
    not just as we think about how to improve charter schools, but
    how to improve all schools. President Obama and Secretary
    Duncan recognize this. Their Race to the Top initiative
    prioritizes the funding for states that allow more charter
    schools.
        As a result, Illinois, Louisiana, Tennessee and California
    have already changed their laws to be eligible. Another six
    states also advanced their policies to strengthen charter
    schools. We should do everything we can to support these
    efforts.
        Now, for all that the charter schools are doing outstanding
    things, there are also charters that aren't serving students
    well and need of the charter schools--now, for all to be shut
    down. Charter schools are not a silver bullet to fixing our
    schools.
        But I think one of our witnesses in a recent hearing,
    Colorado's lieutenant governor Barbara O'Brien, put it best
    when she said that charter schools are research and development
    arms of education.
        If our goal is to build world-class schools, we absolutely
    need to look at high-performing charter schools for research
    and development to replicate what they are getting right. That
    is what Representative Polis' bill, the All Students Achieving
    Through Reform Act, aims to do.
        It would bring to scale what is working in charter schools
    and improve the quality of existing schools. It would allow
    existing schools to apply for grants to help with
    transportation and hire additional staff.
        The bill would also create a new competitive grant program
    for states and districts that want to expand quality charter
    schools in high-need areas.
        I would like to thank Representative Polis, who founded two
    charter schools in Colorado, for introducing this bill.
        I would also like to thank our witnesses for joining us
    today. This is one of the--one of many--this and many other
    discussions to come where we will discuss these issues raised
    here this morning and others and how we can improve No Child
    Left Behind.
        With that, I would now like to recognize Mr. Cassidy.
        [The statement of Mr. Miller follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, Chairman,
                        Committee on Education and Labor

        Good morning.
        Today we will examine how charter schools can be used as a tool to
    drive innovation in our schools. Specifically, we will discuss
    legislation introduced by Rep. Polis that would expand access to
    outstanding charter schools.
        This hearing kicks off a larger conversation about how we can
    ``educate our way to a better economy''--as Secretary Duncan says--by
    overhauling our nation's primary education law. Last week, Congressmen
    Kline, Kildee, Castle and I announced that we plan to do this overhaul
    in an inclusive and transparent way.
        We are starting by holding hearings and asking for input from all
    stakeholders who want to make meaningful improvements to the law. I
    strongly believe that bipartisanship will be the key to getting this
    rewrite done. Our committee has a tradition of working across party
    lines when it comes to education. Nine years ago, we came together in a
    historic way to write the latest version of this law: No Child Left
    Behind. No Child brought powerful reforms to our schools. We made clear
    that it was time to end the inequities and low standards that had come
    to exemplify schools in our country.
        We made it impossible for schools to mask the fact that too many
    students were falling behind. This focus on transparency and
    accountability has forced us to acknowledge some hard truths. It's
    shown us how far we have to go to get our schools and students where
    they need to be. But we also know the law didn't get everything right.
    We all agree, along with teachers, parents, administrators and many
    others, that it needs significant changes. Now, with our economy in
    need of serious rebuilding, we cannot afford to wait to fix it. It's
    time to realize our vision for world-class schools that prepare every
    student to compete in our global economy. To get there, we need to be
    open to bold ideas that ``disrupt'' our current system. We have to pay
    attention to what is working in our schools and give other schools the
    tools to learn from their successes. Time and again, we have seen this
    approach work. Innovation and creativity lead to effective reforms.
    Effective reforms transform schools and communities. One of the best
    examples of this is our high-performing charter schools. These schools
    are proving that the low-income and minority students can succeed when
    given the right tools, challenges and learning environments.
        There are now more than 1.5 million children enrolled at nearly
    5,000 public charter schools across the U.S. In some of these areas,
    students were stuck in struggling schools where 70 percent of students
    drop out. The opportunity promised by a quality charter school was
    their only chance at a better education. Take the Green Dot Public
    Charter schools. Green Dot schools serve students with the highest need
    in Los Angeles and the South Bronx, areas where only about 4 percent of
    kids graduate from college.
        Eighty percent of Green Dot students graduate and 80 percent of
    their graduates are accepted to four-year colleges. Green Dot schools
    also have their own teachers unions affiliated with the National
    Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers.
        Their job security is based not just on seniority, but on how well
    they are teaching students.
        These partnerships show that teachers unions can help lead the way
    in building successful charter schools. Successful charter schools are
    also welcoming accountability and data. They value strong principals
    and teachers. They support longer school hours and more school days to
    help students catch up. They engage parents as active participants in
    their school communities. These are strategies that we should be paying
    attention to, not just as we think about how to improve charter
    schools--but how to improve all schools. President Obama and Secretary
    Duncan recognize this. Their Race to the Top initiative prioritizes
    funding for states that allow more charter schools. As a result,
    Illinois, Louisiana, Tennessee and California have already changed
    their laws to be eligible. Another six states have also advanced their
    policies to strengthen charter schools. We should do everything we can
    to support these efforts. Now, for all the charter schools that are
    doing outstanding things, there are also charters that aren't serving
    their students well and need to be shut down. Charter schools are not a
    silver bullet for fixing our schools.
        But I think one of our witnesses at a recent hearing, Colorado's
    Lieutenant Governor Barbara O'Brien, put it best when she said
    ``Charter schools are the research and development arm of education.''
        If our goal is to build world-class schools, we absolutely need to
    look at high-performing charter schools for research and development--
    and replicate what they are getting right.
        That's what Rep. Polis' bill, the All Students Achieving through
    Reform Act, aims to do.
        It would bring to scale what is working in charter schools and
    improve the quality of existing schools.
        It would allow existing schools to apply for grants to help with
    transportation and hire additional staff.
        The bill would also create a new competitive grant program for
    states and districts that want to expand quality charter schools in
    high-need areas. I'd like to thank Rep. Polis, who founded two charter
    schools in Colorado, for introducing this bill.
        I'd also like to thank all of our witnesses for joining us today.
    On this and many other discussions to come, I look forward to working
    with all members of our committee to fulfill the promise of an
    excellent education for every student.
                                     ______

        Mr. Cassidy. Thank you, Chairman Miller.
        And let me begin by welcoming our distinguished panel of
    witnesses. We are here this morning to talk about proposals to
    expand high-quality charter schools, expand access, a cause
    that Republicans have long embraced and we are pleased to see
    has drawn increasing support on the other side of the aisle.
        The nation's first charter school law was passed almost 20
    years ago, and since that time they have taken root firmly in
    our educational system, providing parents with a choice and
    communities with the innovation and competition necessary to
    begin transforming their schools.
        Charter schools are the epitome of performance-based
    education. In exchange for flexibility and autonomy, they are
    held accountable for producing results. And if they fail to
    meet accountability standards or attract enough students, their
    charters can be revoked.
        As it turns out, attracting students for charter schools
    has not been a problem. In 2009 an estimated 365,000 students
    were on charter school waiting lists, enough to fill more than
    1,100 new average-size charter schools. In fact, more than half
    of all charter schools nationwide have a waiting list.
        Although charter schools are public, they do face
    significant disadvantages compared to traditional public
    schools. Charter schools generally do not receive facilities
    funding, nor can they raise funds through local taxes.
        Twenty-six states and the District of Columbia have caps
    that limit charter school growth. And while the teachers at
    many charter schools have chosen to remain independent, there
    is a growing movement among labor leaders to organize these
    schools and impose rigid collective bargaining agreements that
    prevent creative instructional approaches such as longer school
    days, years or weekend learning opportunities.
        As states and local communities keep working to improve
    opportunities for their students, we need to ensure federal
    policy keeps pace with and does not get in the way of local
    innovation.
        The bill we are discussing today is one of several
    promising ideas to expand access to quality charter schools by
    allowing new schools to be established under an existing
    charter. Other opportunities include eliminating state charter
    school enrollment and growth caps and improving access to
    facilities funding.
        As with all federal programs designed to foster local
    innovation, we must be careful not to tie the hands of
    educators on the front lines. Too many federal mandates can
    undermine the flexibility and autonomy that make charter
    schools so successful.
        At the same time, we must not dilute the value of charter
    schools or the funding they receive by broadening the
    definition in a way that allows schools without true autonomy
    to absorb limited resources or cloud this unique subset of the
    public school system.
        This morning's hearing is a welcome display of
    bipartisanship on the broad issue of expanding access to high-
    quality charter schools, and I look forward to hearing from our
    witnesses on how to make that goal a reality.
        Thank you, and I yield back.
        [The statement of Mr. Cassidy follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Hon. Bill Cassidy, a Representative in Congress
                          From the State of Louisiana

        Thank you Chairman Miller, and let me begin by welcoming our
    distinguished panel of witnesses. We're here this morning to talk about
    proposals to expand access to high-quality charter schools--a cause
    we've long embraced on this side of the aisle, and one that is drawing
    increasing support on the other side.
        The nation's first charter school law was passed almost 20 years
    ago. Since that time, charter schools have firmly taken root in our
    educational system, providing parents with a choice and communities
    with the innovation and competition necessary to begin transforming
    their schools.
        Charter schools are the epitome of performance-based education: In
    exchange for flexibility and autonomy, they are held accountable for
    producing results. If they fail to meet accountability standards or
    attract enough students, their charters can be revoked.
        As it turns out, attracting students has not been a problem for
    quality public charter schools. In 2009, an estimated 365,000 students
    were on charter school waiting lists--enough to fill more than 1,100
    new, average-sized charter schools. In fact, more than half of all
    charter schools nationwide have a waiting list.
        Although charter schools are public, they face significant
    disadvantages compared to traditional public schools. Charter schools
    generally do not receive facilities funding, nor can they raise funds
    through local tax levies. Twenty-six states and the District of
    Columbia have caps that limit charter school growth.
        And while the teachers at many charter schools have chosen to
    remain independent, there is a growing movement among labor leaders to
    organize these schools and impose rigid collective bargaining
    agreements that prevent creative instructional approaches such as
    longer school days and years or weekend learning opportunities.
        As states and local communities keep working to improve
    opportunities for their students, we need to ensure federal policy
    keeps pace with--and does not get in the way of--local innovation. The
    bill we're discussing today is one of several promising ideas to expand
    access to quality charter schools by allowing new schools to be
    established under an existing charter. Other opportunities include
    eliminating state charter school enrollment and growth caps and
    improving access to facilities funding.
        As with all federal programs designed to foster local innovation,
    we must be careful not to tie the hands of educators on the front
    lines. Too many federal mandates could undermine the flexibility and
    autonomy that make charter schools so successful.
        At the same time, we must not dilute the value of charter schools
    or the funding they receive by broadening the definition in a way that
    allows schools without true autonomy to absorb their limited resources
    or cloud this unique subset of the public school system.
        This morning's hearing is a welcome display of bipartisanship on
    the broad issue of expanding access to high-quality charter schools,
    and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how to make that
    goal a reality. Thank you, and I yield back.
                                     ______

        Chairman Miller. Thank you.
        I now yield to Congressman Kildee.
        Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I also want to thank our distinguished witness panel for
    their participation today. I hope your insights--and I expect
    they will--bring us closer to our goal of providing a high
    quality of education for all students.
        While the American education system is one of the better in
    the world, the status quo is no longer acceptable. Higher
    standards and better assessments will help, but we must push
    the envelope with innovative strategies for reform.
        Charter schools certainly hold promise, but only if federal
    and state governments do a better job of requiring quality. I
    watched a number of charter schools divert resources from the
    traditional public school system only to finish the school year
    with students farther behind.
        Innovation cannot occur without proper oversight. And I
    will push for policies that hold these schools accountable for
    performance.
        I am also concerned that these schools all too often fail
    to serve a representative sample of the student population. As
    we explore strategies for comprehensive school reform, we
    should never lose sight of our commitment to equal access for
    all students.
        I hope we have the opportunity to discuss these important
    issues today so we can move forward with solutions acceptable
    to all. I want to thank the chairman for calling today's
    hearing.
        And I now, Mr. Chairman, wish to yield my remaining time to
    my colleague, Representative Polis. As the author of the
    legislation we will discuss today and a former charter school
    superintendent, he is a real leader on this issue, and I am
    confident that he will work hard to make sure we get this
    right.
        I yield to Representative Polis.
        Mr. Polis. Thank you, Mr. Kildee, for yielding your time.
        Chairman Miller. [OFF MIKE]
        Mr. Polis. What is that?
        Chairman Miller. [OFF MIKE]
        Mr. Polis. Thank you, Chairman Miller, for launching our
    committee's bipartisan efforts to reform our federal education
    laws.
        I would also like to thank my colleagues on the other side
    of the aisle.
        As we begin to rewrite No Child Left Behind, we renew our
    commitment to closing the achievement gap and ensuring that
    each and every child, regardless of economic or ethnic
    background, receives a quality education and the opportunity to
    succeed.
        Seeing the positive impact of excellent charter schools in
    neighborhoods across 40 states and the District of Columbia,
    parents want more access to excellent charter schools. But
    sadly, the demand far exceeds the available seats.
        About 365,000 students nationally are on public charter
    school waiting lists, including 38,000 in my home state of
    Colorado.
        To address this problem and expand access to hope and
    opportunity, I introduced the All Students Achieving Through
    Reform, or All-STAR, Act which enables successful public
    charter schools that get the job done to expand and replicate.
    All-STAR allows more at-risk students to attend a great school
    and realize their full potential.
        I know that there are those who wish that charter schools
    didn't exist and others who would like to see every public
    school converted into a charter school. This bill embraces the
    pragmatic common ground.
        The public charter schools are an asset to our education
    system, but only if they do what they are supposed to do,
    expand hope and educational opportunity to those students and
    families who need it the most.
        We will hear today about the need for charter schools to
    improve their performance to better meet the special education
    needs of all students.
        We will hear about the need for quality authorizers to
    intervene or close bad charter schools and ensure a fair
    authorizing process.
        We will hear about how many superintendents and teachers
    see charter schools as a powerful tool in a portfolio
    management approach to district governance.
        The All-STAR bill is a catalyst, a catalyst for allowing
    disadvantaged kids to have a transformative life experience at
    a high-quality public school.
        As we already recognize through Title 5 funding dating to
    the Clinton administration, the federal government has a
    critical role in helping new and innovative charter schools get
    off the ground.
        Serving as laboratories of educational innovation, charter
    schools have pioneered some of the most promising and
    influential reform strategies. This bill creates a separate and
    distinct allocation for the expansion and replication of
    successful charter schools.
        What is indisputable is that successful innovations have
    led to outstanding results. Schools like KIPP, Harlem Success
    Academy and Ricardo Flores Magon in my district are defying the
    odds and stand quietly as the most powerful testimony in
    refutation of those who believe but dare not say that these
    children can't learn.
        All-STAR schools around the country run by innovators who
    succeeded where others have failed are the types of schools we
    must invest in to serve more kids. They can transform the lives
    of families, break the vicious cycle of poverty and ignorance
    and replace it with a virtuous cycle of enlightenment and
    prosperity.
        That is why I have introduced this bill, and that is why I
    am proud to invite my colleagues today to join us in learning
    from our panel about the opportunities and challenges in the
    public charter school movement.
        I yield back.
        [The statement of Mr. Polis follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Hon. Jared Polis, a Representative in Congress
                           From the State of Colorado

        Thank you Chairman Miller for launching the Committee's bipartisan
    efforts to reform our nation's federal education laws and for your
    leadership on serving the needs of all students.
        I would also like to thank my colleague on the other side of the
    aisle, Mr. Ehlers of Michigan, for his support of this legislation and
    for his dedication to improving our public schools.
        As we begin to rewrite No Child Left Behind, we renew our
    commitment to closing the achievement gap and ensuring that each and
    every child, regardless of economic or ethnic background, receives a
    quality education and the opportunity to succeed.
        At the committee's June hearing on charter schools, we heard how
    top-performing charter schools with a rigorous curriculum and high
    expectations, are turning around student achievement and providing a
    world-class education to at-risk students.
        Seeing the impact of such schools in neighborhoods across 40 states
    and the District of Columbia, parents want more access to excellent
    charter schools but sadly the demand far exceeds the available seats.
    About 365,000 students are on public charter school waiting lists
    nationwide, including 38,000 in Colorado.
        To address this problem and expand access to hope and opportunity,
    I introduced the All Students Achieving through Reform (All-STAR) Act,
    which enables successful public charter schools that get the job done
    to expand and replicate. By building on what we know works, All-STAR
    allows more at-risk students to attend a great school and realize their
    full potential.
        I know that there are those who wish that charter schools didn't
    exist, and others who would like to see every public school converted
    to a charter school. This bill embraces the pragmatic common ground
    that public charter schools are an asset to our education system, but
    only if they do what they were supposed to do: expand hope and
    educational opportunity to those students that need it the most.
        We will hear today about the need for charter schools to improve
    their performance to better meet the special education needs of all
    students. We will hear about the need for quality authorizers to
    intervene or close bad charter schools and ensure a fair authorizing
    process. We will hear how many superintendents and teachers see charter
    schools as a powerful tool in a portfolio management approach to
    district governance.
        The All-STAR bill is a catalyst, a catalyst for allowing
    disadvantaged kids to have a transformative life experience at a high-
    quality public school. It is a catalyst for states to embrace good
    policies that promote quality charter growth while strengthening
    accountability and oversight. A catalyst to promote best practices
    among authorizers and making sure that charter schools successfully
    serve the needs of students with disabilities and English language
    learners. And a catalyst for proven models to disseminate throughout
    our schools, both traditional and charters.
        As already recognized through Title V funding, dating to the
    Clinton administration, the federal government has a critical role in
    helping new and innovative charter schools get off the ground. Serving
    as laboratories of educational innovation, charter schools have
    pioneered some of the most promising and influential reform strategies,
    such as extended learning time, principal autonomy, data-driven
    research and instruction, and a laser focus on results.
        This bill creates a separate and distinct allocation for the other
    major benefit of charter schools. Yes, charter schools cause innovation
    to occur and challenge the forces of the status quo to embrace the hard
    work of improvement, but so too the best charter schools represent a
    part of the solution. Part of the solution for what we all came here
    for, why we serve in this Congress, on this committee. Data is a funny
    thing, we all try to use it for political advantage. There are studies
    that show that charter schools are ``better'' and ``more diverse'' than
    other public schools, and studies that show that charters are worse or
    less diverse than other public schools.
        What is indisputable, however, is that successful innovations have
    led to outstanding results. Schools like KIPP, Harlem Success Academy,
    and Ricardo Flores Magon in my district are defying the odds and stand
    quietly as the most powerful testimony in refutation of those who
    believe but dare not say that ``these children can't learn.''
        The Ricardo Flores Magon Academy in Westminster, Colorado, prepares
    kindergarten through eighth grade students for success in school,
    college and beyond. The school has a longer school day with five hours
    of core subject instruction each day and an extended school year, and
    provides for summer enrichment programs and need-based tutoring, as
    well as one-to-one and cohort interventions. All students have daily
    tennis and chess lessons and all teaching staff undergoes three weeks
    of intensive prior to the start of every school year.
        Its student population reflects the community: 93% Free/Reduced
    Lunch; 90% Latino; and 80% English Language Learners. But its students'
    outcomes do not reflect those characteristics. 93% of 3rd graders
    scored proficient or advanced in reading, compared to 73% for Colorado.
    And each and every student--100% of 3rd graders--scored proficient or
    advanced in math, compared to 69% for Colorado.
        It is All-STAR schools like these around the country, run by
    innovators who have succeeded where others have failed, we must invest
    in so they can serve more kids, can transform the lives of more
    families, can break the vicious cycle of poverty and ignorance and
    replace it with a virtuous cycle of enlightenment and prosperity.
    That's why I introduced this bill. And that's why I am proud to invite
    my colleagues today to join us in learning from our panel about the
    opportunities, fairness issues, and challenges in the public charter
    school movement.
                                     ______

        Chairman Miller. Thank you.
        Mr. Castle?
        Mr. Castle. Thank you, Chairman Miller, for holding today's
    hearing.
        And I thank all of the witnesses and all of you who are
    interested in this issue for being here.
        As you all know, the Elementary and Secondary Education
    Act, which includes the public charter schools program, is up
    for reauthorization.
        And with more than 1.4 million students attending over
    4,600 charter schools in 40 states and the District of
    Columbia, I welcome the opportunity to work in a bipartisan
    manner to explore legislation aimed at supporting effective
    charter schools.
        Charter schools are an important part of education reform
    efforts to improve our nation's public school system. Charter
    schools offer choices to parents and children who, in many
    instances, would otherwise be trapped in chronically
    underperforming public schools.
        Charter schools also tackle a variety of educational
    challenges unique to urban, rural and suburban areas.
        In outlining their plan for education reform, President
    Obama and his administration have expressed their support for
    expanding effective charter schools. The administration has
    also called on states to lift caps on the amount of charter
    schools they have.
        In 2009, an estimated 365,000 students were on charter
    schools' wait lists across the country, enough to fill over
    1,100 new average-size charter schools.
        I agree that one way to meet this demand is for states to
    reform or reconsider their caps on charter schools while
    continuing to utilize appropriate measures to ensure that new
    charter schools are of high quality.
        Another thing we can do is look to reform the current
    charter school program to allow for high-quality schools to
    replicate their services in these communities to meet this
    demand.
        Like traditional elementary and secondary schools, however,
    charter schools vary greatly in quality. And I am pleased to
    explore through this hearing and further discussions the role
    of the federal government in supporting high-performing charter
    schools as well as addressing the issue of charter schools that
    are failing our students.
        With the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
    Education Act pending, Congress has the opportunity to enhance
    charter school programs and help increase the number of high-
    quality public charter schools where they are most needed, in
    areas where students are trapped in underperforming schools and
    who are still today left behind.
        With that, I look forward to hearing from today's panel.
        Thank you, Chairman Miller, and I yield back.
        Chairman Miller. Thank you.
        Again, let me just say that pursuant to Rule 7(c), all
    members may submit opening statements in writing which will be
    made part of the permanent record.
        And before I introduce our panel, let me inform the panel
    that we operate under the 5-minute rule here. When you begin to
    speak, in those little boxes in front of you a green light will
    go on. You will have 5 minutes. With 1 minute remaining, an
    orange light will go on, so you can think about how you want to
    summarize.
        And then a red light goes on and we finish--if you would
    finish at that point, but obviously finish so you appear to be
    coherent and--you know, and the rest of--you get your thoughts
    out the way you want.
        I think we have got a great panel this morning. Our first
    witness will be Dr. Eva Moskowitz, who is the founder and CEO
    of Success Charter Network in New York City.
        Dr. Moskowitz runs the famed Harlem Success Academies,
    which are some of the top performing public schools in the
    state. She plans to replicate this successful school model
    across the city, ultimately opening 40 charter schools in New
    York City.
        Dr. Moskowitz has put the charter school concept into
    action, and we look forward to learning from her expertise.
        Robin Lake is the associate director of the Center for
    Reinventing Public Education at the University of Washington
    where she directs the National Charter School Research Project
    and co-directs the Inside Charter Schools project.
        Mrs. Lake focuses on the role of charter schools in driving
    innovation and district-wide reform. She has authored numerous
    studies on public charter policy, development and reform
    strategy. Mrs. Lake will discuss the role charter schools play
    in district reform and driving innovation.
        Greg Richmond is the president of the National Association
    of Charter School Authorizers. Mr. Richmond served in the
    Chicago public schools for over a decade, making it the first
    urban school district to request charter schools, and worked
    under Arne Duncan in the district as the district's chief
    officer of new school development.
        Mr. Richmond will discuss how to build strong charter law
    and policy that both supports charter schools and holds them
    accountable.
        Dr. Thomas Hehir is the director of the Harvard Graduate
    School of Education Leadership program. Dr. Hehir served as
    director of the U.S. Department of Education's Office of
    Special Education Programs under President Clinton.
        Dr. Hehir has devoted himself to the education of students
    with disability. He works tirelessly to improve the research,
    access and services for students with disabilities in charter
    schools.
        Dr. Hehir is an expert on how to increase quality and
    access for students with disabilities who are in special need
    of educational choice.
        Eileen Ahearn is the senior policy analyst for the National
    Association of State Directors of Special Education. Dr. Ahearn
    has extensive experience both in the classroom and in research
    into special education issues.
        Dr. Ahearn will discuss the relationship between special
    education and charter schools at the policy level and in the
    classroom.
        Caprice Young is the president and CEO of KC Distance
    Learning. Dr. Young also served as the board chair of the
    National Alliance of Public Charter Schools.
        Dr. Young was president of the Los Angeles Unified School
    District Board of Education where she played an integral role
    in focusing charter school movement on student achievement,
    community involvement, teacher quality and effective
    management.
        Dr. Young will discuss charter school policy that enables
    growth of high-quality programs while still holding charter
    schools accountable on students and the communities that they
    serve.
        Welcome to the committee.
        Dr. Moskowitz, we begin with you.
        I will have to express a conflict of interest here. I
    visited Dr. Moskowitz' schools a couple of years ago and was
    deeply impressed.
        But go ahead.

      STATEMENT OF EVA MOSKOWITZ, PH.D., CEO AND FOUNDER, HARLEM
                            SUCCESS ACADEMY

        Ms. Moskowitz. Thank you very much, Chairman Miller, for
    holding this hearing and members of the committee.
        As a former civics teacher--and some of you are--remember
    that there used to be civics in the public school system--it is
    an incredible honor to be in these chambers. So thank you for
    having me.
        My name, again, is Eva Moskowitz, and I am the founder of
    Success Charter Network. We have four high-performing schools.
    We are opening three more this summer. And our aspiration is
    not only to create 40 phenomenal schools and educate the kids
    within our four walls exceptionally well, but to change the
    rules of the game so that children outside of our four walls
    can get the education that they deserve and are entitled to.
        Our nation, as you well know, has lost much of its
    competitive edge because our education system, particularly the
    K through 12 education system, is not what it needs to be,
    despite a half century of incredible increases in spending.
    That is the bad news.
        The good news is that we now have proof points across this
    nation of what works. Congressman Polis referred to that in his
    opening statement. We now know that there are a lot of great
    schools.
        And even more importantly for the purposes of this hearing,
    we know that there are charter leaders who have not just done
    it once but have done it over and over again. And so the time
    is ripe to really think through replication and how more
    children can take advantage of what is clearly good school
    design.
        So we have the suppliers, and we certainly have the demand.
    We had 5,000 parents at our lottery for Harlem Success Academy
    for 475 spots. The people have spoken. They want excellent
    education.
        Parents are voting with their feet, not only in New York
    City but across this nation. Therefore, the time is now for the
    federal government to play an important role in reversing our
    nation's educational decline by investing in high-performing
    charter replicators.
        We need a high-occupancy vehicle lane for those folks who
    have proven that they can get the job done.
        There is an anecdote about General Grant that you may have
    heard. Someone told President Lincoln that Grant was a drunk.
    Lincoln's response was that someone should find out what brand
    of whisky Grant was drinking and send a case of it to all of
    his generals. Lincoln's point was when someone is doing
    something right, you shouldn't micro-manage them.
        I would argue that the federal government has a critical
    role to play in supporting fast and smart growth of proven
    success. And that is what Congressman Polis' bill does so well.
        To do successfully, the federal government must protect the
    single greatest ingredient of success, and that is autonomy.
    The whole concept of charters, as was mentioned before, was in
    exchange for high performance, the operator gets freedom.
        I would argue that that is our secret sauce at Harlem
    Success. How come kids, I am asked all the time, who are in a
    Title 1 school with 18 percent special ed have outperformed
    affluent neighborhoods in New York City and around the state?
        If I may brag for a moment, we ranked 32 out of 3,500
    schools statewide. We outperformed our school district by 20
    percent in math, 40 percent in reading. Nearly three-quarters
    of our children scored at the highest level, which is a four,
    compared to one-quarter in the school district.
        Our Harlem children outperformed those in Scarsdale, one of
    the wealthiest communities in this country. How is that
    possible? The answer is freedom.
        We have the freedom to get it right, the freedom to correct
    in real time the stuff we get wrong, the freedom to innovate,
    the freedom to work longer and harder, the freedom to organize
    our schools around children and teaching rather than the
    economic interests of grownups. Without this freedom, you would
    get the same results that the school districts get.
        At Success Academy we have the freedom to invest in
    teaching and school leadership talent, so we pay more than the
    local teachers contract.
        How do we afford this even though our per pupil is less?
    Well, we choose to have larger class sizes so we can pay our
    teachers more, and we don't rely on a Soviet-style procurement
    system of the district. Like many Americans, we go to Costco
    and Kmart and Target to buy our supplies.
        We have the freedom to make science a non-second-class
    subject by teaching it 5 days a week starting in kindergarten.
        We have the freedom to use technology in really smart ways,
    not only to improve student learning but, more importantly, to
    improve teaching. We have emphasized technology way too much on
    the student end and not enough on the teaching end.
        At Success Academy we organize our resources both in terms
    of time and money around helping teachers get better.
        I understand my time is running out, so I will cut to the
    chase. We are succeeding because of this freedom. But while
    there are these proof points of success, I have to run back to
    New York to a hearing because there are forces trying to stop
    replication.
        Whether it is KIPP, or Achievement First, or Harlem Success
    Academies, these great proof points are being resisted by the
    forces of the status quo.
        And I would urge you, Chairman Miller, to be bold, as I
    know you have, so that we can give so many more children an
    opportunity to learn at an unbelievably high level. Thank you
    so very much.
        [The statement of Ms. Moskowitz follows:]

          Prepared Statement of Eva Moskowitz, Ph.D., CEO and Founder,
                             Harlem Success Academy

        Good morning Chairman Miller and the members of the House Committee
    on Education and Labor.
        It is a great honor to be here. As a former civics teacher (yes,
    there used to be such teachers) I consider it a privilege to be in this
    hallowed chamber. Thank you for considering my thoughts and views.
        My name is Eva Moskowitz. I am the founder of Success Charter
    Network. We run four, soon to be seven, high-performing public charter
    schools. Our goal is to open up and manage 40 schools of phenomenal
    quality. We want to replicate our extraordinary success not only so
    that we can educate the kids within our four walls exceptionally well
    but so that we can pave the way for much more fundamental, systemic
    educational change and improvement.
        Our nation has lost much of its competitive edge because while we
    have dramatically increased educational spending over last quarter
    century, we have failed to fundamentally alter student outcomes.
        The good news is that we now have in locations across this country
    clear proof points of what works. While not all charters are high
    performing, there is a subset of charter leaders who have not only one
    great school but have replicated that success at multiple schools.
        So we have suppliers. And we certainly have demand. In New York
    City, 5000 parents came out to win a spot in one of the Harlem Success
    Academies. Parents are voting with their feet, demanding excellent
    schools.
        The time is therefore now for the federal government to play an
    important role in reversing our nation's educational decline by
    investing in high performing charter replicators. We need a high
    occupancy vehicle lane for our most successful charter leaders.
        There's an anecdote about General Grant you may have heard. Someone
    told President Lincoln than Grant was a drunk. Lincoln's response was
    that someone should find out what brand of whisky Grant was drinking
    and send a case of it to all of his Generals. Lincoln's point was that
    when someone is doing something right, you shouldn't micromanage them.
        I would argue that the federal government has a critical role to
    play in supporting fast and smart growth of proven success.
        To do so successfully, the federal government must protect the
    single greatest ingredient of success: autonomy. The whole concept of
    charters is that it is a compact between the state and the operator to
    deliver student achievement results in exchange for freedom.
        I get asked all the time what is the secret sauce? How come your
    kids who are in a Title I school have outperformed affluent
    neighborhoods in New York City and around the state on state tests? Our
    school was ranked 32 out of 3500 schools statewide. We outperformed our
    school district by 20% in math and by 39% in reading. Nearly three
    quarters of our children are ``advanced proficient'' in math, compared
    with roughly one quarter in our school district. Our Harlem children
    outperformed those in Scarsdale--one of the wealthiest communities in
    this country.
        How is it possible?
        The answer is freedom. We have the freedom to get it right. The
    freedom to correct in real time when we get stuff wrong. The freedom to
    innovate. The freedom to work longer and harder. The freedom to
    organize our schools around children and teaching rather than the
    economic interests of grownups. Without this freedom, you would get the
    same results district schools get.
        At Success Academies we have the freedom to invest in teaching and
    school leadership talent so we pay more than the local teachers
    contract. How do we afford this even though we get less per pupil than
    the district? Well, we choose to have larger class sizes so we can pay
    our teachers more and we don't rely on the Soviet-style procurement
    system of the district. Like many Americans, we go to Costco and Kmart
    and Target to buy our supplies.
        We have the freedom to make science a non-second class subject by
    teaching it five days a week starting in kindergarten. We have the
    freedom to use technology in really smart ways, not only to improve
    student learning but perhaps even more importantly to improve teaching.
    At Success Academies we organize our resources both in terms of money
    and time around helping teachers get better. So much so that we are
    simultaneously running a school for kids and a school of education. But
    to do so requires freedom. Most district contracts only allow teachers
    to come in a few days before school starts. Our faculty spend 8 weeks a
    year getting training.
        But while we are succeeding because we have this freedom, it needs
    to be constantly protected because the forces against reform get that
    this is the secret to our success. In our state capital in Albany this
    winter, politicians have put forth all sorts of bills to curb our
    freedom. They range from automatic unionization of charter bills to a
    quota system whereby charters would be capped and only allowed to
    educate a small percentage of a district. Indeed, replicators like us
    are a particular target. State Senator Bill Perkins, a Harlem
    politician, has a bill that would allow a single charter operator to
    educate only 5 percent of a district. These kinds of bills will kill
    replication, taking away the very freedoms that make high performing
    charters successful.
        Chairman Miller and members of House Committee on Education and
    Labor: please help charters with a strong record of success serve even
    more kids. This entails both financial support of replication but also
    not tampering with their secret sauce, autonomy!
                                     ______

        Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
        Mrs. Lake?

        STATEMENT OF ROBIN LAKE, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
         REINVENTING PUBLIC EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

        Mrs. Lake. Good morning, Chairman Miller.
        Chairman Miller. We are going to have you pull that
    microphone a little closer to you.
        Mrs. Lake. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Miller. Is
    that better?
        Chairman Miller. Yes. Thank you.
        Mrs. Lake. Members of the committee, thank you so much for
    having us testify today.
        My name is Robin Lake. I am with the Center on Reinventing
    Public Education. We are a nonpartisan research center at the
    University of Washington.
        In my view, charter schools are essential to the most
    important school district reforms at play today. And this is
    especially true in some of the major urban districts, the
    megadistricts that we think about, that people had largely
    given up hope on in the past.
        They had given up hope that reforms would ever overcome
    decades of pretty dismal school performance and graduate rates
    and dropouts.
        This wasn't the case even a few years ago. Most districts
    at that point had either ignored charter schools, hoping that
    they would be basically a passing fad, go away, or tried to
    marginalize their impact for lobbying--by lobbying for state
    charter school caps or limited funding.
        But district leaders are coming to realize now that charter
    schools have an important and, I would argue, in many ways a
    game-changing role to play in district reform. And let me give
    you just a few examples.
        In New Orleans, 60 percent of all public schools are now
    charter schools. At first, this is basically a practicality.
    After Hurricane Katrina, charters run by nonprofits were the
    first schools that were open--able to open quickly enough after
    the storm to serve local students.
        But now the Recovery School District is actually turning
    district-run schools into charters because they are looking at
    the performance and realizing they are--the charters are simply
    outperforming district schools.
        So now 76 percent of charter schools in the Recovery School
    District were considered last year academically acceptable or
    better, compared to only 15 percent of the district-run
    schools.
        In Denver, successful college prep charter schools now take
    the place of district schools that failed students for decades.
        The superintendent there doesn't think of his job as
    running a school system. He thinks of himself as running a
    system of schools or a portfolio of schools. His job is to get
    the best schools possible for the kids in Denver, and he
    doesn't particularly care what they are called.
        In New York City, district officials say that after having
    repeatedly tried and failed to fix their worst schools, they
    have no choice now but to turn to charter schools.
        The district officials actually lobbied the state
    legislature to go ahead and lift the statewide cap so that they
    can replace more failing schools.
        So these district leaders all have different reforms in the
    specifics, but they have one thing in common, and that is they
    believe that their work is too urgent and too important to
    close off any viable options.
        They see charter schools not as a threat but as an
    opportunity to overcome school system inertia. They see
    charters as a way to give them the political leverage they
    need. So instead of trying to compete with charters, they are
    trying to co-opt them.
        Now, here are four specific things that charter schools
    offer smart districts. First, access to new talent. District
    leaders know that they can't fix their public schools without
    great people. And charter schools tend to attract
    entrepreneurial teachers, principals, central office folks who
    wouldn't otherwise choose to work in public education.
        Second, they offer the opportunity to start schools from
    scratch. So they find it is much easier to close low-performing
    schools if they can announce that a charter school with a
    proven model will take its place. And it is much easier to open
    a new school rather than to try to fix a school with a
    persistent toxic culture of failure.
        Charter schools, third, offer proof that things can be
    better, so the proof point that Dr. Moskowitz was just talking
    about. The presence of even one charter school that is sending
    all of its poor and minority students to college can really be
    a game changer for an urban superintendent, and it can take
    away excuses that district schools can't do better. It can
    inspire people to want to make politically difficult decisions.
        Fourth, charter schools can create urgency to resolve
    differences. A healthy charter school sector and competition
    can actually act as a common enemy that can bring district
    management and unions to the table to renegotiate new contracts
    that work better for students in all schools.
        There are many examples like this of district leaders who
    are getting past the charter label and are using charters to do
    what they wanted to do anyway. But I know that many of you hear
    often from school district leaders who are losing students to
    charter schools and see that as a threat.
        In response to those complaints, many states have capped
    charter school growth to protect districts, and others have
    tried to ease the financial pain, and at the same time policy-
    makers wonder why charter schools aren't causing widespread
    school improvement. But that can't happen if states continue to
    protect districts from competition.
        So if we want charter schools to be a tool for district
    reform beyond just a handful of forward-thinking districts, it
    is time to level the financial playing field so that charters
    have access to decent facilities and an equal share of public
    funding. And it is time to stop protecting school districts
    with arbitrary statewide caps.
        It is also true, though, that policy-makers have one more
    obligation if the charter sector is to be taken seriously by
    district leaders. Too many charter schools, as we have heard
    this morning, are mediocre, and many are performing very badly.
        Lawmakers should insist that states and districts take
    performance oversight very seriously and close down charter
    schools that aren't effective. And they need to promote and
    replicate more high-performing charter schools, as this bill
    tries to do.
        To close, then, the strategy of chartering is increasingly
    seen by school districts as an opportunity to create the
    schools they need. But that very promising strategy is unlikely
    to happen in more than just a handful of districts that we are
    hearing about today until states commit to fair competition
    and, probably more importantly, performance-based
    accountability.
        Thank you.
        [The statement of Mrs. Lake follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Robin J. Lake, Associate Director,
                     Center on Reinventing Public Education

        Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Kline, and members of the
    committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today.
        Charter schools are responsible for some of the most important
    school district reforms at work today. This is especially true in some
    major urban districts where people had largely given up hope that
    reforms would ever overcome decades of dismal school performance.
        This was not the case even a few years ago. Most districts either
    ignored charter schools hoping that they would be a passing fad or
    tried to marginalize their impact by lobbying for state charter caps or
    limited funding.
        But district leaders are coming to realize that charters have an
    important and--in some cases a game-changing role--to play in public
    school improvement. Let me give you just a few examples.
        In New Orleans, 60% of all public schools are now charter schools.
    At first this was simply a practicality. After Hurricane Katrina,
    charters run by non-profits were the first schools able to open quickly
    enough to serve local students. But now the Recovery School District is
    actually turning district-run schools into charters because they are
    simply outperforming district schools. Seventy-six percent of charter
    schools in the Recovery School District were considered Academically
    Acceptable in 2009 compared to only 15% of the RSD operated schools.
        As school choice becomes the norm in New Orleans, poor parents are
    developing a new attitude. After years of accepting sub-par schools
    because it was their only option, they are now coming to believe that
    their kids are actually entitled to schools that will fully prepare
    them to go to college.
        In Denver, successful college prep charter schools now take the
    place of district schools that failed students for decades. The
    superintendent doesn't think of his job as running a school system. He
    runs a system of schools. His job is to get the best schools possible
    to the kids in Denver. He doesn't particularly care what they are
    called.
        In New York City, district officials say that after having
    repeatedly tried and failed to fix their worst schools they have no
    choice but to turn to charter schools. District officials actually
    lobbied their state legislature to lift a statewide cap on charters so
    that they could replace more failing schools.
        These district leaders all have different reforms in the specifics.
    But they have one thing in common. They believe that their work is too
    urgent and too important to close off any viable options. They see
    charter schools not as a threat but as an opportunity to overcome
    school system inertia. They see charters as a way to give them the
    political leverage they need. Instead of trying to compete with
    charters, they are co-opting them.
        Here are four specific things that charter schools offer smart
    districts.
        1) Talent: District leaders know that they can't fix their public
    schools without great people. Charter schools attract entrepreneurial
    teachers, principals, and even central office staff who wouldn't
    otherwise choose to work in public education.
        2) The opportunity to start schools from scratch. It is much easier
    for districts to close low-performing schools if they can announce that
    a charter school with a proven model will take its place. And it is
    much easier to close and reopen a school than to try to fix a school
    with a persistent toxic culture of failure.
        3) Proof that things can be better. The presence of even one
    charter school that is sending all of its poor and minority students to
    college can be a game changer for an urban superintendent. It can take
    away excuses that district schools can't do better and it can inspire
    people to want to make politically difficult decisions.
        4) Urgency to resolve differences. A healthy charter sector can act
    as a common enemy that actually can bring district management and
    unions to the table to negotiate new contracts that work better for
    students in all schools. As a result of competition from various choice
    options, Minneapolis Public Schools dropped from the largest to the
    fourth-largest district in Minnesota in just a few years. This
    downsizing led to massive teacher layoffs. The Minneapolis teachers
    union responded by pushing for new state legislation to allow
    autonomous, but still unionized, district schools.
        There are many examples of district leaders who are getting past
    the charter label and are using charters to do what they wanted to do
    anyway. But I know that many of you hear from school district leaders
    who are losing students to charter schools and see that as a threat.
        In response to those complaints, many states have capped charter
    school growth to protect districts from charter competition. Others
    have tried to ease the financial pain of enrollment loss by providing
    aid to districts that lose students to charter schools. At the same
    time policy makers wonder why charter schools are not causing
    widespread school improvement.
        We should not expect charter schools to inspire improvement if
    states continue to protect districts from competition. If we want
    charter schools to be a tool for district reform beyond just a handful
    of forward-thinking districts, it is time to level the financial
    playing field so that charters have access to decent facilities and an
    equal share of public funding. It's time to stop protecting school
    districts with arbitrary statewide caps.
        It's also true however, that policy makers have one more obligation
    if the charter sector is to be taken seriously by more districts. Too
    many charter schools are mediocre and many are performing very badly.
    Lawmakers should insist that states and districts take performance
    oversight seriously and close down charter schools that are not
    effective. And they need to promote and replicate more high performing
    charter schools.
        To close, then, the strategy of chartering is increasingly seen by
    school districts as an opportunity to create the schools they need. But
    that very promising strategy is unlikely to happen in more than a
    handful of urban districts until states commit to fair competition and
    performance-based accountability.
                                     ______

        Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
        Professor Hehir?

     STATEMENT OF THOMAS HEHIR, ED.D., PROFESSOR, HARVARD GRADUATE
                          SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

        Mr. Hehir. Good morning, Mr. Miller and the committee. I am
    very pleased to be back here after many years away.
        I am here today to talk about special populations in
    charter schools. I would like to begin by expressing my strong
    support for charters and for public school choice, which
    charters represent.
        I would like to also say that I have prepared many students
    at Harvard University who have gone out to run charters and
    teach in charters, and I am very, very pleased with their work.
        Charters represent a tremendous opportunity for special
    populations. Parents of children with disabilities need
    choices. Parents who are very affluent often move from one
    district to another to find a school that is accepting of their
    children and provides good support.
        Middle-and low-income parents do not have that option. And
    charter schools provide that option for many parents of
    children with disabilities in this country. And that should be
    supported and increased.
        Also, charter schools are viewed by many activists within
    various special populations as an opportunity to address issues
    that have been poorly addressed in traditional systems. For
    instance, the National Council of La Raza is supporting the
    establishment of over 50 charter schools to expand
    opportunities for children who are English language learners.
        The Chime Charter School in Los Angeles was designed by
    parents of children with disabilities who were seeking
    inclusive options for their children.
        Also, many charters, certainly charters that I have looked
    at in my research, often are based on the principles of
    individualization and often employ strong efforts in direct
    instruction. These are exactly the sort of things that many
    children with disabilities as well as other children who
    struggle need.
        The problem, as I see it, as it relates to charters--and I
    keep having to pronounce that explicitly with my Boston accent,
    charters--is under-enrollment, that if you look at charters in
    many places, the number of kids with disabilities who are
    enrolled in those charters is significantly below what exists
    in traditional schools.
        For instance, in San Diego, where I have done research, in
    2005-2006, the percentage of children in non--what are called
    non-conversion charters--in other words, charters that start
    from scratch--is 5.8, compared to 12 percent of the overall
    traditional public school population.
        Also, in San Diego, very few children with complex
    disabilities are enrolled in charters. And when I did my
    research, there were only three--this is three individual
    children--with mental retardation enrolled in the non-
    conversion charters and only two children with autism in San
    Diego.
        In Los Angeles, there is a similar pattern, where the
    likelihood that a child with a more complex disability is
    enrolled in a charter is one-fourth that of traditional public
    schools.
        Many places, a similar pattern exists for English language
    learners--that in Boston, for instance, where 20 percent of
    children are English language learners, there is only one
    charter that exceeds 4 percent in its enrollment of English
    language learners.
        Why is this a problem, this under-enrollment? Number one,
    it compromises the charter experiment. In other words, if you
    are not serving comparable kids, it is difficult to make
    assertions.
        Secondly, it raises civil rights concerns. Third, the
    financial burden for educating these children may fall
    disproportionately on the traditional public schools.
        In light of this, I recommend the following. One, that
    states proactively address the issue of underrepresentation of
    special populations. The secretary of education should be
    required to approve authorizing regulations to make sure that
    federal statutes are adhered to when schools are authorized.
        But also, states should be required to demonstrate to the
    secretary that they are supporting charters in serving special
    populations. Most charter operators want to do this but need
    assistance in doing this.
        And last, I believe we should be funding, as the bill calls
    for, research on best practices in charter schools. And I
    believe it is time for us to have a systematic study done by
    the National Research Council on the service for special
    populations in charter schools.
        Charters are no longer an experiment in the American
    education system and, thankfully, they are a well established
    part of the education system. But it is time for us to make
    sure that charters serve all children.
        Thank you very much.
        [The statement of Mr. Hehir follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Thomas Hehir, Ed.D., Professor,
                      Harvard Graduate School of Education

        My name is Thomas Hehir. I am a Professor of Practice at the
    Harvard Graduate School of Education where I teach courses on educating
    students with disabilities and federal education policy. I also work as
    a consultant in the area of special education primarily with large city
    school districts. My clients have included New York City, Los Angeles,
    San Diego, and Baltimore among others. I have spent my entire career in
    the field of special education as a classroom teacher, local
    administrator in both Boston and Chicago, and as a university
    professor. I also served as Director of the Office of Special Education
    Programs for the U.S Department of Education during the first six years
    of the Clinton Administration.
        In relationship to today's hearings I do not purport to be an
    expert on all aspects of charter schools. My expertise is primarily in
    special education. My knowledge of charter schools is based on work I
    have done in San Diego and Los Angeles assisting these districts to
    improve their programs for students with disabilities. I have also,
    supervised two doctoral students who have conducted research on the
    participation of students with disabilities in charters in
    Massachusetts and New Orleans, reviewed the literature in this area in
    preparation for teaching my courses. Further I have consulted with
    faculty colleagues who have done research on charters, and consulted
    with many of my former students who run charters. I have done research
    in three charter-like ``pilot schools'' in Boston that have enrolled a
    diverse population of students with disabilities that are outperforming
    their urban counterparts. I have also had the opportunity to speak with
    numerous parents of children with disabilities who have enrolled their
    children in charters or have considered the option.
        I would like to state from the onset that I am a proponent of
    charter schools. I believe that parents, particularly those who reside
    in urban and low-income areas should have choice within the public
    system. The need for choice is even greater for families of students
    with disabilities given the huge variability between schools in
    implementing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
    The Opportunity Charters Present for Special Populations
        Charters provide choice to all parents. For parents of students
    with disabilities choice is highly valued due to the high degree of
    variability that exists across public schools in educating their
    children. Though we have made great strides in improving educational
    offerings for students with disabilities, non-compliance with IDEA
    continues in many schools. Affluent parents sometimes move to get their
    children into schools that welcome their children and provide them with
    a high-quality education. I have done work with a high school in the
    Boston suburbs that does a great job including students with
    disabilities. I have met a number of parents who moved to this
    community simply to allow their children to attend this school. Poor
    and middle class parents do not have that option. Charters can and in
    some cases do provide this option.
        Some charter schools have even been created by activists who are
    seeking a more inclusive and effective option for children with
    disabilities. The Mary Lyons School, Boston Arts Academy pilot schools,
    Democracy Prep Charter in Harlem, and Chime Charter in Los Angeles are
    examples of schools that from their onset have sought to be inclusive
    of a diverse population of students with disabilities.
        There is also evidence that charters may serve students with
    disabilities in more inclusive settings than traditional public
    schools. Chris Wilkens, a doctoral student at Harvard, found that urban
    charters in Massachusetts were more likely to serve similar students
    with disabilities in inclusive settings than traditional urban public
    schools. His research also found that over-placement of African
    American students in special education was far less of a problem in
    charters than traditional urban public schools.
        Many charters focus intently on individualization that is a central
    tenet of IDEA. Others such as the KIPP schools focus on explicit direct
    instruction needed by many students with disabilities and other
    students who may struggle in school. These approaches may account for
    some of the lower levels of special education identification in charter
    schools. To the extent that these practices prevent inappropriate
    referrals to special education, they should be encouraged.
        A similar dynamic exists for English language learners and other
    special populations. Like students with disabilities, English language
    learners participate in charters in much smaller numbers than they
    exist in the population at large. However, some advocates for English
    language learners have seized upon the opportunity provided by charters
    to promote better education for these children. For instance, the
    National Council of La Raza has supported the establishment of over 50
    charters in their efforts to expand educational opportunity for this
    population.
    The Problem of Charters and Special Populations
        Research on the participation of special populations and charters
    demonstrates that in most places these students are under-represented.
    For instance in the area of disability, charters generally serve fewer
    children with disabilities than traditional public schools. When one
    looks at students with more significant or complicated disabilities in
    general, charters serve far fewer students and in many instances none
    at all. Research conducted in a number of major cities bears this out.
    In San Diego, close to 10% of all students now attend charter schools.
    Though the enrollment of students with disabilities in traditional
    public schools overall approaches 12%, the average enrollment of
    students with disabilities in non-conversion (from scratch) charter
    schools during the 2005-2006 school year was 5.8% (Hehir & Mosqueda,
    2008). With respect to students requiring extensive special education
    services, the imbalance is even more dismal. For example, during the
    2005-06 school years, there were only three children with mental
    retardation in all San Diego non-conversion charter schools combined;
    traditional schools across the district, meanwhile, educated almost one
    thousand students with mental retardation. That same year, non-
    conversion charter schools in San Diego educated just two students with
    autism.
        The picture is quite similar in Los Angeles. The enrollment of
    students in charter schools throughout the city is large (approximately
    8%). The enrollment of students with disabilities across the district
    averages over 11%, while the enrollment of students with disabilities
    in independent charter schools averages fewer than 7% (Independent
    Monitors Office, 2009). As in San Diego, the distribution of disability
    types within independent Los Angeles charter schools is skewed; for
    students with disabilities requiring extensive special education
    services, the likelihood they will be enrolled in independent charter
    schools is one-fourth that of traditional public schools.
        Similar data emerges for charters serving urban areas in
    Massachusetts. For the 2006-07 school years, the percentage of enrolled
    students with disabilities in traditional urban schools was 19.9%,
    while the percentage of enrolled students with disabilities enrolled in
    urban charter schools was significantly lower, 10.8%. As is the case in
    Los Angeles and San Diego, significantly fewer students were enrolled
    in all urban charter schools who had more substantial needs such as
    mental retardation, emotional disturbance, and autism. Several cities'
    charter schools enrolled none of these students.
        The under-enrollment of English language learners in charters
    mirrors that of that of students with disabilities in many places. In
    Boston where approximately 20% of students are English language
    learners, only one charter school enrolled more than 4%. In NYC a
    similar pattern emerges where the district enrollment is 15% English
    language learners and the charters serve approximately 4%.
        As for disadvantaged students, there is some evidence that charters
    in some places may enroll a more advantaged population. However the
    vast majority of charters are enrolling large number of disadvantaged
    students.
        Why is under-representation a problem?
        The under-representation of special populations in charter schools
    is a problem on a number of levels:
        a. First low participation rates raise potential civil rights
    concerns. Students with disabilities, English language learners and
    homeless students have rights as American citizens both granted to them
    by the Constitution and within various federal education laws.
    Anecdotal information suggests that some parents are discouraged from
    applying to charter schools and that some charter schools ``send back''
    students with complicated needs to traditional public schools. America
    has opened doors to previously excluded groups through the Civil Rights
    Act, the IDEA and The Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The
    federal government needs to assure that discrimination is not occurring
    within the charter sector.
        b. The ``experiment'' that charters represent is compromised when
    charters do not serve the same populations as traditional public
    schools. One of the primary justifications for allowing charters to
    exist is to demonstrate better approaches for educating students for
    whom the current education system has failed. If they fail to serve
    representative populations their claims to being exemplary are
    significantly compromised.
        c. The failure of charters to enroll representative populations of
    students from special populations can disadvantage traditional public
    schools financially. As the San Diego school system demonstrates, the
    financial responsibility for educating students with disabilities rests
    with the traditional public schools. Yet, the charters receive roughly
    the same amount of money per-capita. It should be noted the per-capita
    cost in most school districts include the cost of educating special
    populations and that this cost is higher per pupil. For instance the
    cost of providing language supports to English language learners or
    transportation to homeless students increases the financial burden on
    school districts. In the case of students with disabilities this cost
    can be much higher. The population least represented in charters,
    students with low incidence and more complex disabilities, are the most
    expensive for schools to educate.
        d. There is financial incentive for charters not to educate
    students for whom additional costly services may be necessary. Under
    the current system many charters receive the same amount of money per
    student whether they educate students with more complex needs or not.
    Many charters, like many traditional public schools, encumber most of
    their money on the first day of school by hiring staff. When an
    unforeseen need arises during the year they may not have the resources
    to address that need. In traditional public schools the central office
    may step in with needed support or the anticipated needs of students
    from special populations are budgeted upfront. Some charters have
    established similar mechanisms but many have not. Therefore, when a
    child with additional needs becomes apparent the charter may not have
    the resources to meet this need. I am aware of charters that have not
    even budgeted for a single special education teacher upfront.
    Policy Considerations
        In my opinion, it is time for policy makers to directly address the
    issue of imbalanced enrollment of students from special populations in
    charter schools. Though some may have argued in the past that charter
    schools needed time to get established, and to have flexibility to
    experiment, they are now a well-established segment of our education
    system. The charter choice should be available to all students and
    parents. Toward that end I believe the federal government has a role in
    assuring equity and promoting more effective public school choice for
    parents of children from special populations. The following
    recommendations are offered:
        (1) The federal government should require states to proactively
    address issues of access involving special populations as a condition
    for receiving federal funds.
        The US Department of Education historically has played a crucial
    role in promoting equity in education in the areas of racial
    desegregation, gender equity and disability access among others. The
    lack of access for special populations to some charters raises serious
    equity and civil rights concerns. At a minimum, states should be
    required to submit their authorizing regulations to their Departments
    of Education for approval. States should further be required to
    investigate charters that enroll significantly fewer students from
    special populations than their surrounding area contains. It is
    important to emphasize here that states should be allowed flexibility
    as there should not be an expectation that charters always mirror the
    population of the surrounding area. Some charters may have lower
    special education counts simply because they have been successful in
    eliminating inappropriate referrals to special education. Others may
    have been established to serve English language learners. These
    innovations should not be discouraged. The point here is that the state
    needs to reasonably assure the federal government that special
    populations' access to charters is not impeded.
        States should also be required to assist charter operators in
    meeting their obligations to provide access to special populations. The
    vast majority of charter operators I have met want to address the needs
    of all students. Again, this may take many forms and states should be
    allowed a good deal of flexibility in meeting this requirement.
        (2) The federal government should establish a federal technical
    assistance center focusing on the needs of students from special
    populations in charter schools.
        This center would primarily serve the states in meeting their
    obligations detailed above. Such a center could provide states with
    model authorizing documents as well as information about successful
    practices in charters serving special populations. This model has
    worked very effectively in IDEA and the Elementary and Secondary
    Education Act as a vehicle to promote better practices in the schools.
        (3) Fund research on serving special populations in charter
    schools.
        Though I am sure Congress has gotten advice from many quarters on
    how to address these issues, there is no consensus on the range or
    extent of the problems concerning special populations and charter
    schools. I believe this issue is important enough to warrant a National
    Research Council study. Such a study would provide an objective picture
    of the current state of charters and special populations and identify
    promising practices. Congress should also fund a research program to
    investigate ways in which charters can better serve special
    populations.
    Final Reflections
        This past year I assisted my cousin in choosing an elementary
    school in Boston for her four year-old twin boys. Having worked in the
    Boston system from 1977-1987, I was pleasantly surprised at how much
    the system had improved. My cousin is currently considering two public
    charters and two traditional public schools for the boys. All four are
    strong choices. This contrasts to the system I left where parents were
    often given few or no choices and were forced to send their children to
    underperforming schools. I believe Boston is a far better system for a
    number of reasons but one is parental choice. Boston outperforms most
    major cities on the National Assessment of Educational Progress as does
    the state of Massachusetts. Parental choice is deeply embedded in the
    state as well. The challenge facing Massachusetts as well as Congress
    is how we make this choice real for all parents.
        Finally, in doing research for this testimony I relied on an old
    and tested method; Facebook. I posted a request for assistance to my
    former students many of whom work in charters. They responded well to
    their old professor. One related that she was working as a psychologist
    in a major city with troubled youth many of whom are in the foster care
    system. Many of her students have opted for charters in lieu of large
    impersonal high schools that had utterly failed them. She found that
    charters had been particularly effective in serving GLBT youth who felt
    unsafe in traditional high schools. Another student related how her
    sister had placed her son in a local charter school and how happy she
    was that she was not forced to send him to an underperforming
    elementary school. However, she has another child with disabilities for
    whom this choice was not an option. For her disabled daughter, she had
    no choice and was forced to place her in the same underperforming
    school she avoided for her son. She has been forced to file for a due
    process hearing in order to get an acceptable choice for her. This will
    be a huge financial burden on the family. Public school choice is an
    incomplete option for this family.
        It's time for the adults who run charters and for those who
    authorize them to act. The charter ``experiment'' has gone on long
    enough. Access to all must become a priority. When PL 94-142 was passed
    in 1975 opening up the doors of schools to thousands of previously
    excluded students with disabilities Congressman Miller stated, ``I
    believe the burden of proof * * * ought to rest with the administrator
    or teacher who seeks for one reason or another to remove a child from a
    normal classroom * * *'' We need to provide that same logic to charter
    schools and special populations. The burden of proof should fall on
    government officials, charter school operators and charter advocates
    who need to take proactive responsibility to deal with the very real
    issues of access for special populations.
        I hope Congress leads the way.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

        Chairman Miller. Thank you.
        Mr. Richmond?

    STATEMENT OF GREG RICHMOND, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
                       CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZERS

        Mr. Richmond. Good morning, Chairman Miller and members of
    the committee. Thank you for inviting me to speak with you
    today.
        I am Greg Richmond, president of the National Association
    of Charter School Authorizers. NACSA is a membership
    organization not of charter schools but of the agencies that
    oversee charter schools.
        We work with our member agencies to grow the number of
    high-quality charter schools across the nation by setting
    professional standards for authorizing and providing technical
    assistance directly to authorizers.
        Over the past 15 years, the federal government has spent $2
    billion to support the creation of new charter schools. This
    has been a good and appropriate investment, creating better
    educational opportunities for hundreds of thousands of
    children.
        Yet during that same time, the federal government has
    invested almost nothing--less than $2 million, or one-tenth of
    1 percent--to ensure that those schools are held to high
    standards and properly monitored by a competent authorizing
    agency.
        It is as if the federal government had spent billions for
    new highway construction but almost nothing to put up
    guardrails along the sides of those highways. Yes, new highways
    will allow drivers to get where they are going faster, but the
    lack of guardrails will sometimes lead to horrible accidents.
        Authorizers, if you will, are the guardrails of the charter
    school sector. They are the institutions that oversee public
    charter schools on behalf of the public.
        While some think of authorizing as a one-time action to
    approve a new school, in reality authorizers have three core
    responsibilities that continue throughout the life of the
    schools they oversee.
        First, authorizers have a responsibility to maintain high
    standards and to hold schools accountable for achieving those
    standards. Organizations that would like to start a new charter
    school should be required to demonstrate a high capacity to
    succeed and to educate students to achieve high standards.
        Second, authorizers have a responsibility to protect
    student and public interests. This means that authorizers must
    ensure that all students are treated fairly. Admissions
    processes must be conducted fairly. Students with disabilities
    must receive appropriate services.
        And to protect the public, authorizers must put in place
    monitoring systems particularly to ensure that public funds are
    used appropriately.
        Third, authorizers have a responsibility to preserve the
    autonomy of the schools they oversee. Autonomy is a--is
    critical to charter school success.
        Freedom from vast mandates and regulations allows charter
    schools to be innovative and to excel. On a day-to-day basis,
    authorizers must preserve that autonomy and refrain from re-
    regulating the schools they oversee.
        High standards, student and public interests, and autonomy.
        So how well are authorizers meeting those responsibilities
    on behalf of the public? The record is mixed. Some are doing a
    good job, but others are not doing well at all.
        Indeed, many charter school problems you may hear about are
    closely related to poor authorizing. Low-performing charter
    schools are sometimes allowed to stay open because their
    authorizers don't have the data or don't have the will to close
    them.
        Students may not be treated fairly because basic monitoring
    is not occurring. Or a school may go bankrupt while its
    authorizer did not require an annual audit.
        In some cities and states, these problems are rare because
    authorizers have developed professional systems to fulfill
    their responsibilities. But in other places, professional
    authorizing practices are seriously lacking.
        It is easy to forget about highway guardrails until the
    moment you lose control of your car. The same is true for
    charter authorizing. Without strong authorizer practices in
    place, a school drifting off course quickly becomes a disaster
    for its students, parents and the public.
        So what can you do? First, as you consider legislation like
    the All-STAR Act or the reauthorization of ESEA, be certain to
    include provisions that require authorizers to meet minimum
    professional standards.
        Also, as you vote to authorize funds for more charter
    schools in the future, ensure that some of those funds go to
    support improved authorizing.
        And finally, as you talk with officials of the Department
    of Education, let them know that you believe authorizing is an
    important component of a quality charter school sector, not
    only in the future but also right now.
        My organization and our members see the positive power of
    charter schools every day. From coast to coast, we work with
    hundreds of excellent schools that are making a real difference
    in children's lives. But we also know that harm can be done if
    charter schools are not properly monitored.
        Authorizers have a responsibility to maintain high
    standards, protect student and public interests, and preserve
    school autonomy. And with your support, more authorizers can
    successfully fulfill those responsibilities now and in the
    future.
        Thank you.
        [The statement of Mr. Richmond follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Greg Richmond, President & CEO,
             the National Association of Charter School Authorizers

        Good Morning Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Kline, and Members of
    the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to speak with you today. I am
    Greg Richmond, President and CEO of the National Association of Charter
    School Authorizers.
        NACSA is a membership organization, not of charter schools, but of
    the agencies that oversee charter schools. We work with our member
    agencies to grow the number of high-quality charter schools across the
    nation by setting professional standards for authorizing, evaluating
    the practices of authorizers and providing assistance directly to
    authorizers.
        Over the past fifteen years, the federal government has allocated
    $2 billion to support the creation of new charter schools. This has
    been a good and appropriate investment, creating better educational
    opportunities for hundreds of thousands of children. Yet during that
    same time, the federal government has invested almost nothing, less
    than $2 million, or one-tenth of one percent, to ensure that those
    schools are held to high standards and properly monitored by a
    competent authorizing agency.
        It is as if the federal government had spent billions for new
    highway construction, but nothing to put up guardrails along the sides
    of those highways. Yes, new highways will allow drivers to get where
    they are going faster, but the lack of guardrails will sometimes lead
    to horrible accidents.
        Authorizers, if you will, are the guardrails of the charter school
    sector. They are the institutions that oversee public charter schools
    on behalf of the public.
        While some think of authorizing as a one-time action to approve a
    new school, in reality, authorizers have three core responsibilities
    that continue throughout the life of the schools they oversee.
        First, authorizers have a responsibility to maintain high standards
    and to hold schools accountable for achieving those standards.
    Organizations that would like to start a new charter school should be
    required to demonstrate a high capacity to succeed. Charter schools
    that are already operating should be required to demonstrate a track
    record of academic achievement in order to stay open.
        Second, authorizers have a responsibility to protect student and
    public interests. This means that authorizers must ensure that all
    students are treated fairly. Admissions processes must be conducted
    fairly. Students with disabilities must receive appropriate services.
    Discipline and expulsion processes must be fair. To protect the public,
    authorizers must put in place monitoring systems, particularly to
    ensure public funds are used appropriately.
        Third, authorizers have a responsibility to preserve the autonomy
    of the schools they oversee. Autonomy is critical to charter school
    success. Freedom from vast mandates and regulations allows charter
    schools to be innovative and to excel. On a day-to-day basis,
    authorizers must preserve that autonomy and refrain from re-regulating
    the schools they oversee.
        High standards, student and public interests, and autonomy. How
    well are authorizers meeting these responsibilities on behalf of the
    public? The record is mixed. Some are doing a good job, but others are
    not doing well at all. Indeed, many charter school problems you may
    hear about are closely related to poor authorizing.
        Weak proposals for new schools are sometimes approved because some
    authorizers do not have a strong application evaluation process in
    place. For example, our survey of authorizer practices from across the
    nation found that 13% of authorizers do not conduct an in-person
    interview with organizations applying for a new charter.
        Low-performing charter schools are sometimes allowed to stay open
    because their authorizers don't have the data or don't have the will to
    close them. Our national survey found that one-quarter of authorizers
    do not have guidelines for making renewal decisions and one-fifth of
    authorizers do not apply consistent academic standards across all of
    the charters they oversee.
        Students may not be treated fairly because basic monitoring is not
    occurring. Forty percent of authorizers reported that they do not have
    sufficient resources to perform their responsibilities.
        Finally, a school may go bankrupt while its authorizer did not
    monitor its finances, because 15% of authorizers surveyed do not
    require an annual audit.
        In some cities and states these problems are rare because
    authorizers have developed professional systems to fulfill their
    responsibilities. But in other places, as noted above, professional
    authorizing practices are seriously lacking.
        It is easy to forget about highway guardrails until the moment you
    lose control of your car. The same is true for charter authorizing.
    Without strong authorizer practices in place, a school drifting off
    course quickly becomes a disaster for its students, parents and the
    public. So what can you do?
        As you consider legislation like the All-STAR Act, be certain to
    include provisions that improve authorizing. While my organization
    supports the overall goals of the All-STAR Act, the provisions related
    to authorizing are inadequate and need to be improved.
        All-STAR does not require grant applicants to have any plans to
    strengthen authorizing. In fact, the ``Use of Funds'' section of the
    bill does not allow grant recipients to use funds for any activities to
    improve authorizing.
        All-STAR identifies preferences for grant applications in three
    areas that are related to quality authorizing: contracts, public
    reporting, and authorizer evaluation. Applicants with those three
    elements are more likely to receive funds. We are pleased by those
    elements but must recognize that they are optional, not required.
        All-STAR literally does not require quality authorizing practices
    to be in place as a condition to receive federal funds and specifically
    does not permit funds to be used to strengthen authorizing. NACSA does
    not believe that quality authorizing should be optional.
        Beyond the proposed All-STAR Act, as you vote to authorize funds
    for more charter schools, ensure that some of those funds go directly
    to support improved authorizing. And as you talk with officials at the
    Department of Education, let them know that you believe authorizing is
    an important component of a quality charter school sector.
        While I have been pleased by Secretary Duncan's strong support for
    the growth of quality charter schools, the Department of Education
    needs to be equally supportive of quality authorizing. For example,
    within the Race to the Top competition, the criteria related to
    authorizing are relatively weak. And despite a $40 million increase for
    charter schools in the 2010 budget, the Department is not planning to
    dedicate any new funds directly for authorizing.
        Just as in years past, more money for new highways and no money for
    guardrails.
        My organization and our members see the positive power of charter
    schools every day. From coast to coast, we work with hundreds of
    excellent schools that are making a real difference in children's
    lives. But we also know that harm can be done if charter schools are
    not properly monitored.
        Authorizers have a responsibility to the public to maintain high
    standards, protect student and public interests, and preserve school
    autonomy. With your support, more authorizers can successfully fulfill
    those responsibilities. Thank you.
                                     ______

        Chairman Miller. Thank you.
        Dr. Ahearn, welcome.

     STATEMENT OF EILEEN AHEARN, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
                  STATE DIRECTORS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION

        Ms. Ahearn. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to
    appear before you and discuss these important issues related to
    charter schools.
        My name is Eileen Ahearn, and I come to this discussion
    with a long background in both general and special education. I
    have been a public school teacher, a director of a special
    education collaborative, a district director of special
    education, and the superintendent of a school district.
        I came to NASDSE, the National Association of State
    Directors of Special Education, in 1991 to work on national and
    state policy issues. I have directed three federally funded
    projects that specifically focused on special education in
    charter schools.
        These projects have produced targeted resources, especially
    the series of Primers on Special Education in Charter Schools,
    that provide information and assistance for authorizers,
    operators and state officials who are involved with charter
    schools.
        The primers are now part of a Web site that includes
    additional resources that my colleagues and I developed on the
    topic of special education in charter schools.
        I currently serve as a consultant to the charter school
    community on special education issues while continuing to work
    at NASDSE on other projects. I see many parallels between the
    special education and the charter school movements.
        At their core, special education and charter schools are
    different approaches to providing students with educational
    opportunities that ideally match their unique educational
    needs.
        Any discussion of special education in charter schools must
    start with a clear understanding of the basic feature of
    charter schools--that is, parental choice. Students can be
    enrolled in charter schools only if their parent makes that
    choice.
        States have adopted charter school laws to provide
    additional options for parents so that they can access what
    they consider to be the best type of school program for their
    child to succeed.
        Charter schools may be waived for some--from some state or
    local requirements, but they are part of the public education
    system and, as such, they are subject to all federal laws and
    regulations related to students with disabilities, especially
    the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA.
        The requirements can pose problems for charter schools that
    are also mandated by state law to fulfill the mission for which
    they were approved when they were authorized to operate.
        Research has identified the policy tension between the
    prescriptive requirements of IDEA and the identifying features
    of charter schools that include the exchange of autonomy for
    accountability and placement based on parental choice.
        Most people are not aware of the many complexities involved
    in providing special education in a charter school. For
    example, the majority of charter schools are considered to be
    part of the school district that authorized them--that is,
    their LEA--and it is the LEA that can decide what, when and how
    special education will be provided in the charter school.
        Conversely, a charter school may be considered to be its
    own LEA under state law and hold full responsibility for all
    special education services its students need. That means that
    this type of charter school must provide all special
    instruction and related services in a student's IEP, such as
    speech or occupational therapy, or even the assignment of an
    aide specifically for that student.
        Further, the state location of a charter school is one of
    its predominant and most critical characteristics because
    requirements differ so widely among states. However, most
    states have not developed technical assistance to help charter
    schools meet these responsibilities.
        Some, however, have developed state-specific technical
    assistance that could be replicated for other states so that
    future charter schools can be better prepared to meet the
    special needs of students with disabilities before they open
    their doors.
        Over the more than 30 years that IDEA and its implementing
    regulations have been in effect, many changes have occurred. A
    major theme that has come from those revisions is an increased
    emphasis on educating students with disabilities with their
    non-disabled peers to the maximum extent possible.
        This approach, known as inclusion--that is, keeping
    students with disabilities in the general ed classroom,
    learning through standards-based general education curriculum.
    There are many charter schools that are prime examples of
    successful inclusion.
        There are also charter schools that are designed primarily
    to serve students with disabilities, and they also provide an
    important resource to parents and school systems.
        There is a significant need for policy clarification and
    technical assistance to help charter schools carry out their
    responsibilities for special education. The application process
    of many authorizers pays little or no attention to how the
    charter school will amass the capacity to meet the needs of
    students with disabilities who enroll in their schools.
        Many of the charter school administrators I have worked
    with have sincerely demonstrated their interest in and support
    for serving students with disabilities.
        Charter schools have become an important addition to
    America's public education system, and many of them have
    successfully served students with disabilities just as
    successfully as traditional public schools have done.
        Thank you again for this opportunity to appear before the
    committee, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may
    have.
        [The statement of Ms. Ahearn follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Eileen M. Ahearn, Ph.D., Project Director,
          National Association of State Directors of Special Education

        Good Morning, Mr. Chairman, Senior Republican Member Kline and
    Committee Members: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
    and discuss important issues related to charter schools.
        My name is Eileen Ahearn and I come to this discussion with a long
    background in both general and special education. I have been a public
    school teacher, a director of a special education collaborative, a
    district director of special education and the superintendent of a
    school district. I came to NASDSE (the National Association of State
    Directors of Special Education) in 1991 to work on national and state
    policy issues. NASDSE is a nonprofit national organization that
    represents the state directors of special education in all 50 states,
    the District of Columbia, the Bureau of Indian Education, the
    Department of Defense Education Agency, the federal territories and the
    Freely Associated States.
        I have directed three federally funded projects that specifically
    focused on special education in charter schools. These projects have
    produced targeted resources, especially the series of Primers on
    Special Education in Charter Schools, which provide information and
    assistance for authorizers, operators and state officials who are
    involved with charter schools. The Primers are now part of a website
    that includes additional resources that my colleagues and I developed
    on the topic of special education in charter schools. I currently serve
    as a consultant to the charter school community on special education
    issues while continuing to work part-time at NASDSE on other projects.
        I see many parallels between the special education and charter
    school movements. At their core, special education and charter schools
    are different approaches to providing students with educational
    opportunities that ideally match their unique educational needs.
        Any discussion of special education in charter schools must start
    with a clear understanding of the basic feature of charter schools,
    that is, parental choice. Students can be enrolled in charter schools
    only if their parent makes that choice. States have adopted charter
    school laws to provide additional options for parents so they can
    access what they consider to be the best type of school program for
    their child to succeed.
        Charter schools may be waived from state or local requirements, but
    they are a part of the public education system and, as such, they are
    subject to all federal laws and regulations related to students with
    disabilities, especially the Individuals with Disabilities Education
    Act (IDEA). The requirements can pose problems for charter schools that
    are also mandated by state law to fulfill the mission for which they
    were approved when they were authorized to operate. Research has
    identified the policy tension between the prescriptive requirements of
    IDEA and the identifying features of charter schools that include the
    exchange of autonomy for accountability and placement based on parental
    choice.
        Most people are not aware of the many complexities involved in
    providing special education in a charter school. For example:
         The majority of charter schools are considered to be part
    of the school district that authorized them, i.e., their LEA, and it is
    the LEA that can decide what, when and how special education will be
    provided in the charter school.
         Conversely, a charter school may be considered to be its
    own LEA under state law and hold full responsibility for all special
    education services its students may need. That means that this type of
    charter school must provide all special instruction and related
    services in a student's IEP, such as speech or occupational therapy or
    even the assignment of an aide specifically for that student.
         Further, the state location of a charter school is one of
    its predominant and most critical characteristics because requirements
    differ so widely among states. However, most states have not developed
    technical assistance to help charter schools meet their special
    education responsibilities. Some, however, have developed state-
    specific technical assistance that could be replicated for other states
    so that future charter schools can be better prepared to meet the
    special needs of students with disabilities before they open their
    doors.
        Over the more than 30 years that IDEA and its implementing
    regulations have been in effect, many changes have occurred. A major
    theme that has come from those revisions is an increased emphasis on
    educating students with disabilities with their nondisabled peers to
    the maximum extent possible. This approach is known as inclusion, that
    is, keeping students with disabilities in the general education
    classroom, learning through the standards-based general education
    curriculum. There are many charter schools that are prime examples of
    successful inclusion. There are also charter schools that are designed
    primarily to serve students with disabilities and they also provide an
    important resource to parents and school systems.
        There is a significant need for policy clarification and technical
    assistance to help charter schools carry out their responsibilities for
    special education. The application process of many authorizers pays
    little or no attention to how the charter school will amass the
    capacity to meet the needs of students with disabilities who enroll in
    their schools. Many of the charter school administrators I have worked
    with have sincerely demonstrated their interest in and support for
    serving students with disabilities. Charter schools have become an
    important addition to America's public education system and many of
    them have successfully served students with disabilities just as many
    traditional public schools have done.
        Thank you again for this opportunity to appear before the Committee
    and I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
                                     ______

        Chairman Miller. Thank you.
        Ms. Young?

       STATEMENT OF CAPRICE YOUNG, ED.D., PRESIDENT AND CEO, KC
                 DISTANCE LEARNING, KNOWLEDGE UNIVERSE

        Ms. Young. Thank you, Chairman Miller and members of the
    Education and Labor Committee. Good morning.
        And thank you for the opportunity to testify today at your
    first hearing in the 111th Congress on reauthorization of
    elementary and secondary school education.
        It is especially an honor that you are focusing your first
    committee hearing on charter schools and their effectiveness.
    It is an honor for the movement, because it says to us that we
    have arrived, that we are taken seriously, and that the kinds
    of gains that we are making with students will have a chance to
    be integrated into the larger education system as a whole.
        My day job is that I am the CEO of KC Distance Learning,
    and we enable education innovators to create high-quality
    online programs for charter and non-charter public school
    students as well as private schools in grades 6 through 12
    across the country.
        And I am here today in my role as chair of the National
    Alliance for Public Charter Schools, where we represent charter
    schools and the students and parents and teachers and other
    educators in those charter schools throughout the country.
        It is a nonprofit organization that is bipartisan and is
    working hard to improve not just charter school education but
    public education as a whole.
        Before I go forward with more of my comments, I just wanted
    to take a minute to preface my remarks with some personal
    information that I think is important because it is the
    foundation that underlies my testimony.
        I was raised as one of two biologically connected children
    in a family headed by a special education teacher and sculptor
    and a juvenile probation officer who is also a minister. They
    served as foster parents for 45 years.
        By the time I went to college, I had had more than two
    dozen brothers and sisters of all different ethnicities and
    backgrounds. But the one thing that they all had in common was
    an unrealized potential due to the situations in which they
    were born.
        And during my career I have been honored to have been
    responsible for 68 high school students complying with their
    court-required community service; more than 1 million early
    childhood education, kindergarten through 12th grade and adult
    learning students in L.A. Unified School District; a quarter of
    a million charter schools in California; and 63,000 online
    students learning who attend our IQ Academies, who are enrolled
    in Aventa courses and The Keystone School.
        I am the mother of three girls who span the spectrum of
    having special needs, being typically developing, and being
    highly gifted. So when I talk about my commitment to high
    quality education for all school--for all students, it comes
    from a very personal experience of the diversity of learners
    that we have a responsibility to teach.
        Basically, I support the philosophy of education by all
    means necessary. And I know that the members of this committee
    share a similar depth of commitment based on your own personal
    stories.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue by just giving you
    an aphorism that I was raised with, and that is that it is
    very--it is very important to experiment, and new charter
    schools are doing great experimentation.
        But at some point you also need to do more of what works,
    and less of what doesn't work, and you have to know the
    difference. As my family would say, more of what works, less of
    what doesn't, and know the difference. Or as other people might
    say, is if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. But it is
    more than that.
        Over the last several years, we have been engaged in
    activities to grow the charter movement, working with both
    schools and support organizations, all with a focus on quality.
        Importantly, too, the movement has and continues to support
    the closure of low-performing charter schools, which is all
    about doing less of what doesn't work.
        And we also support the closure and restructuring of any
    public school that is not meeting the student educational
    needs. It is that kind of balance that makes us credible. We
    hold ourselves to the same high standards we would demand of
    any other public school.
        Inherent in the charter concept that everyone here has
    identified is this responsibility in exchange for autonomy. And
    we strongly support that and support regulations that support
    that as well.
        To give you a sense of how the charter school movement has
    grown--and you have identified some of that--in 1994 when the
    charter school program was originally created, there were only
    seven states with charter school laws and only 60 schools in
    existence.
        By the time No Child Left Behind was signed into law there
    were slightly more than 2,000 charter schools in 37 states and
    the District of Columbia. Today, there are almost 5,000 charter
    schools educating more than 1.6 million children in 39 states
    and the District of Columbia.
        To give that a regional flavor, when I started on the
    school board in Los Angeles, we had about a dozen charter
    schools. Some of them were independent and some of them were
    district-created charter schools. Now they have more than 160,
    more than 160 schools.
        The charter school movement just in the state of
    California--if you were to measure it by size equivalent to
    other school district, it would be fourth in the country in
    terms of the size of the movement. So clearly, we have gone
    beyond experimentation to actually serving the educational
    needs of students.
        I am almost out of time. To conclude, I wrote a lot in my--
    you know, in my statement that was in the record. But the
    bottom line is this. If we want to be able to have a great
    education system, we have to do more of what works, less of
    what doesn't. And charter schools are doing that all across the
    country.
        And I appreciate your support for expanding the charter
    schools program to be able to make those kinds of changes
    effective.
        [The statement of Ms. Young follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Caprice Young, President and CEO, KC Distance
     Learning; Board Chairman, National Alliance for Public Charter Schools

        Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Kline, and members of the Education
    and Labor Committee, good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to
    testify today at your first hearing in the 111th Congress on
    reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
    (ESEA). I am Caprice Young, President and CEO of KC Distance Learning,
    a leading provider of distance learning programs for 62,000 public and
    private school students in grades 6 through 12 across the country, and
    I am also the board chairman of the National Alliance for Public
    Charter Schools, a nonprofit organization representing all sectors of
    the national charter school movement.
        I would like to preface my remarks with some personal information
    that underlies my testimony. I was raised as one of two biological
    children in a family headed by a special education teacher/sculptor and
    a juvenile probation officer/minister who served as foster parents for
    45 years. By the time I went to college, I had had more than two dozen
    brothers and sisters from a variety of ethnicities and backgrounds. The
    one thing they all had in common was unrealized potential due to the
    situations into which they were born. During my career I have been
    responsible for 68 high school students complying with their court-
    required community service; more than a million early childhood
    education, K-12, and adult school students in LAUSD; a quarter of a
    million charter school students in California; and 63,000 online
    learning students who attend IQ Academies, or are enrolled in Aventa
    Learning courses and The Keystone School now. I am the mother of three
    girls who span the spectrum of having special needs, developing
    typically and being highly gifted. When I talk about my commitment to
    high quality education for all students, it comes from a very personal
    experience of the diversity of learners we have a responsibility to
    reach. I support the philosophy of education by all means necessary. I
    know the members of this committee share a similar depth of commitment
    from your own stories.
        Mr. Chairman, the fact that you have called the first ESEA
    reauthorization hearing to discuss new ways to support charter school
    replication and expansion is a huge honor for the public charter school
    movement. I recognize there are many reform ideas and proposals to
    consider, and I thank the Committee for leading off its reauthorization
    efforts by highlighting ways America can more fully and robustly
    support the growth, replication, and expansion of high quality
    charters, while also infusing charter concepts throughout ESEA with the
    intention of improving all public schools. Together, in a bipartisan
    fashion, the charter school movement looks forward to working with
    Members to support these goals. I also recognize that as ESEA is
    reauthorized, and the charter school programs are reauthorized, more
    focus must be placed on ensuring our best charter models are enabled to
    grow (rewarding success) and that the federal programs are updated to
    encourage state policies governing charter schools improve.
        Over the last several years, I have, along with organizations such
    as the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, engaged in
    activities to grow the charter school movement, working with both
    schools and support organizations, all with a focus on quality.
    Importantly too, the movement has, and continues, to support the
    closure of low-performing charter schools. Inherent in the charter
    concept, and essential for success, is an agreement that in exchange
    for autonomy, quality schools will be developed or they will be closed
    down. I'd like to highlight a couple noteworthy activities of the
    movement in support of these goals: the National Alliance for Public
    Charter Schools created the ``Task Force on Charter School Quality and
    Accountability'' in 2005, which established the principle that the
    movement will flourish only if charter schools grow in quality as well
    as in numbers; it created a new model state charter law, developed
    through extensive consultation with policy experts and charter movement
    leaders; In 2009, the National Alliance released the first-ever ranking
    of all state charter school laws based on the full range of values in
    the public charter school movement, including quality and
    accountability--which includes closing low-performing charter schools--
    funding, and growth; and, The Allianceit developed a framework for the
    redesign of the Federal Charter Schools Program (CSP) with a new
    emphasis on quality startups and replication of effective charter
    models. I share these same objectives, beliefs, and goals.
        Over the past several years, the charter school movement has been
    fortunate to work extremely closely with this Committee on charter
    school matters. In the 110th Congress, H.R. 2904, a bipartisan proposal
    authored by Congressmen Boustany and sponsored by Congresswoman
    McCarthy, as well as several other Committee Members was introduced to
    redesign the current public charter school programs for the 21st
    Century. In 2009 and continuing to this day, I have been fortunate
    enough to see the great work of Rep. Polis on H.R. 4330 which has
    garnered bi-partisan Committee support from Rep. Ehlers. This is a
    proposal to support the replication and expansion of the best charter
    models while also encouraging and incentivizing states to dramatically
    improve policies authorizing and overseeing public charter schools.
        Additionally, I've watched work undertaken with the Senate on
    charter proposals too; ranging from Senator Vitter's recently
    introduced S. 2932, a proposal to redesign the current charter school
    programs, to ongoing work with Senator Landrieu and Senator Hagan on
    yet-to-be-introduced bills supporting education reforms and public
    charter schools. And, directly related to today's proceedings, I know
    the there is ongoing work with Senator Durbin on a Senate companion
    bill to the All Students Achieving through Reform Act (All-STAR).
        Throughout my career including my work with the National Alliance,
    the focus has been on good policy and working in a bipartisan manner.
    It is my hope that any ESEA reauthorization includes critical elements
    of improved charter policy supported by all of the Committee. As a
    professional who has worked in multiple roles representing the public
    charter school movement, my goal today is to impress upon the Committee
    the need to update the federal charter school programs. Specifically,
    To ensure the federal government reauthorizes them with certain key
    additions, continues to provides resources when states and locals do
    not meet their obligations to charter schools, that federal policies
    encourage states to improve their charter laws, that federal policies
    continue to support both the growth of new charters and also the
    replication and expansion of the best models, and that ultimately
    chartering is an education reform that benefits all public school
    children by having advantageous elements of charters infused throughout
    the traditional public school system.
        Included in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the U.S.
    Department of Education is new language enabling funding from the
    Federal Charter Schools Program (CSP) to support the replication and
    expansion of successful charter models; this was the first legislative
    change to the programs since 2001 when they were reauthorized as part
    of the No Child Left Behind Act to meet the needs of parents and
    children across the country. Authorized in 1994, the CSP was originally
    created when there were only seven states with charter school laws, and
    only 60 schools in existence. By the time NCLB was signed into law,
    there were just slightly more than 2000 charter schools in 37 states
    and the District of Columbia. Today, there are almost 5000 charter
    schools, educating more than 1.6 million children in 39 states and the
    District of Columbia. The movement's growth has been dramatic, and that
    growth has been sustained and encouraged because of parent demand and
    persistent educators combined with the right resources and policies.
        The CSP was designed as a competitive grant to encourage states to
    not only pass public charter school laws, but to enact quality charter
    school laws. Although much attention is placed on newer competitive
    grants and a potential for more, the CSP has long been a competitive
    grant program intended to reward states for implementing education
    reform policies in line with supporting quality charter school growth.
    Each time it has been updated, new elements have been included that at
    the time were seen as critical components of quality state charter
    legislation, elements which would foster the growth of a high quality
    schools. This emphasis must continue, and new policies must be adopted
    at the federal level which to continue push states to improve their
    charter laws and environments. In California, as president of the
    California Charter Schools Association (CCSA), we often leveraged the
    CSP to encourage state policy changes.
        One vital new direction for federal policy is ensuring the ability
    to support the replication and expansion of effective public charter
    schools. After almost 18 years of chartering, it is clear certain
    charter schools are some of the best schools, private or public, in
    America--more must be done to offer children an opportunity to attend
    them. As charter schools have grown, many have tried to replicate
    campuses or expand grades served to align K-12 offerings. Neither of
    these practices can be funded under current law, however. I encourage
    the Committee to consider changes via reauthorization to fully
    accomplish this goal. As mentioned before, via this year's
    appropriations process, new abilities were granted to the Department to
    fund the replication and expansion of the best charter models; however,
    this was a short term remedy, a release valve to help the schools
    currently trying to replicate but lack support. When ESEA is
    reauthorized, a more complete approach will need to be crafted. For the
    time being however, this new direction will be a dramatic help to
    schools around the country. For instance, the Knowledge is Power
    Program (KIPP) started 18 new schools in 2009, of those only 6 were
    able to receive CSP funding. Other high-performing charter management
    organizations (CMOs) share this problem. Uncommon Schools, a highly
    successful CMO operating schools in New York, New Jersey, and
    Massachusetts, plans to open 20 new schools in the next three years.
    Only six of these are eligible for CSP funding under current law.
    Achievement First, another nationally known high-quality CMO operating
    schools in Connecticut and New York, plans to open 10 schools in the
    next three years, but only three are currently eligible for CSP funding
    under current law.
        Ultimately though, even with federal funding able to support
    replication and expansion of the best charter models, state policies
    are, and will always likely be, the main factor in determining the
    environment in which charters operate. It is critical that federal
    policies be structured in alignment with good state policy. When this
    occurs, a constant loop of feedback can be set up. Federal incentives
    can encourage states to adopt the right policies, including equitable
    funding for charters, quality oversight of authorizers and all parties
    involved in chartering, equitable access to facilities and facilities
    support, and high levels of autonomy in exchange for high degrees of
    accountability. These will help create more high quality charter school
    sectors, like in New York City where ``gold standard'' study after
    study shows the city's public charter schools excelling and
    outperforming the traditional public schools in the city. Federal
    programs can reward states for setting up these policies, and then
    states can ultimately develop new and improved policies that can be
    adopted in the future via reauthorization. A closed circuit of
    improvement can be created between federal and state legislation, the
    federal law incentivizing states to develop better policies, and then
    the federal law adopting the best state practices to encourage
    additional states to adopt the successful policies.
        Currently though, the CSP has just three priority criteria for
    awarding grants to States:
        (A) the State has demonstrated progress in increasing the number of
    high quality charter schools that are held accountable in the terms of
    the schools' charters for meeting clear and measurable objectives for
    the educational progress of the students attending the schools, in the
    period prior to the period for which a state Education Agency or
    eligible applicants applied for a grant under this subpart
        (B) The State----
        (i) Provides for one authorized public chartering agency that is
    not a local education agency, such as a State chartering board, for
    each individual or entity seeking to operate a charter school pursuant
    to such State law; or
        (ii) In the case of a State in which local educational agencies are
    the only authorized public chartering agencies, allows for an appeals
    process for the denial of an application for a charter school.
        (C) The State ensures that each charter school has a high degree of
    autonomy over the charter school's budgets and expenditures.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ See Charter Schools Program Section 5202 (e)(3) at: http://
    www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg62.html#sec5202
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Although there are additional assurances that states must make when
    applying for CSP grants, these are the only priority criteria in
    determining grants to states. While these criteria have been helpful in
    addressing certain factors in state policies, and should continue to be
    priority criteria for federal charter funding, they do not reflect the
    full spectrum of policies at the state level to ensure quality charter
    growth.
        In 2007, a bipartisan bill was put forward to amend the Charter
    School Programs: H.R. 2904 and then subsequently adopted into the House
    2007 NCLB discussion draft. Many of these proposals included updating
    the priority criteria as well as enabling new usage of funds to better
    meet the growth of high quality schools. The six key changes were:
         Enhancing Support for Start-Ups and Replications. First,
    while helping charter school start-ups remained the foundation of the
    CSP, H.R. 2904 also provided greater support for the expansion and
    replication of successful charter models. In particular, the bill
    allowed more than one CSP grant per recipient and permitted charter
    support organizations to receive grants to undertake expansion and
    replication activities. CCSA undertook significant steps to engage
    charters in CA's school turnaround efforts highlighted by the work at
    Gompers and Keiler traditional public schools which became successful
    charter schools. This change of who can directly administer the CSP
    grant would enable other groups to take on and support this activity
    more robustly like CCSA.
         Strengthening Priority Criteria for State Grants. Second,
    the legislation strengthened the priority criteria by which the
    Secretary of Education may award grants to states. An ideal state
    charter school law encourages growth and quality as well as a high
    degree of school autonomy and accountability. To motivate states to
    adopt the ideal law, the bill added priorities to encourage the
    creation and support of non-district authorizers, the strengthening of
    charter school autonomy and accountability, and the provision of
    equitable funding to charter schools.
         Allowing Authorizers to Serve as Grant Administrators.
    Third, the bill strengthened the administration of the CSP by allowing
    charter school authorizers to serve as grant administrators in addition
    to state education agencies (SEAs). In some states, the SEA may be the
    best organization to manage CSP funds. These SEAs have involved their
    state's public charter school leaders in the administration of their
    grants and in developing programs that reflect their state's specific
    needs. In states where SEAs have fallen short in administering (or even
    applying for) the program, however, charter schooling in those states
    will be enhanced by allowing charter school authorizers to compete for
    the CSP grant administrator role.
         Granting Funding Discretion to the Secretary. Fourth, the
    bill allowed the Secretary of Education to allocate funds as needed
    between the Charter Schools Program and State Facilities Incentive
    Grants Program. This funding challenge is further exacerbated by the
    reservation of up to $100 million in new CSP funds for the State
    Facilities Incentive Grants Program. By granting discretion to the
    Secretary, the bill allowed for federal appropriations to respond to
    the needs of the states, recognizing that in certain years more money
    will be needed for the CSP, while in other years more money will be
    needed for the State Facilities Incentive Grants Program.
         Creating a National Dissemination Program. Fifth, the
    legislation created a national dissemination program. As charter
    schools continue to grow, the best practices developed in these
    innovative public schools must be disseminated to all other public
    schools. Previously, the CSP's dissemination activities were primarily
    state-focused. As proposed by the legislation, a new national
    dissemination program will encourage the sharing of charter schools'
    best practices among public schools across the nation.
         Reauthorizing the Credit Enhancement Program. Finally, the
    draft incorporated reauthorization of the Credit Enhancement for
    Charter School Facilities Program, an important vehicle for encouraging
    private sector investment in charter school facilities, into the CSP.
    This change will enhance administrative efficiency in the overall
    charter schools programs.
        But, time has passed since 2007, and it has been almost 10 years
    since the CSP was last reauthorized. These last several years have
    shown the charter movement additional key steps the federal government
    should take to incentivize improved state policy environments. One
    critical area where federal law is silent is on quality authorizing.
    Any reauthorization must include core elements of quality control
    around authorizing, including: priority criteria for a transparent
    charter application, review, and decision-making process; requirements
    for performance based contracts between schools and authorizers;
    comprehensive charter school monitoring and data collection processes;
    clear processes for renewal, nonrenewal, and revocation decisions; and
    oversight of all parties involved in chartering from the schools to the
    authorizers too. I strongly encourage the federal government to adopt
    measures to encourage states to hold all parties accountable in the
    chartering process. Too often the emphasis is on just one entity, but
    many parties are ultimately responsible and accountable for charter
    school success.
        The All-STAR legislation, includes many of the elements described
    above, and paints a comprehensive picture for how to move the federal
    charter programs forward. A critical new addition though is a
    significant focus on authorizer oversight and oversight of
    authorizers--highlighted by a priority criteria for states that have or
    will have in place policies for reviewing the effectiveness and quality
    of their charter authorizers, as well as additional priority criteria
    on charter schools having equitable access to pre-K and adult education
    funding streams; equitable and timely funding compared to traditional
    public schools, including facilities funding, that includes bonding
    revenues and millage revenues; options to be their own Local Education
    Agency; a renewed focus on charter autonomy including explicit
    requirements for written performance contracts that ensures charter
    schools have independent and skilled governing boards; and, a
    requirement for these successful, all-star schools to have in place
    plans to share their best programs, practices, or policies with other
    schools and LEAs. The bill moves federal statute in new directions as
    well, including allowing grant recipients to retain a portion of their
    grant in a reserve account to help cover the costs of expanding and
    replicating, even keeping the interest earned on the funds to help
    further the purposes of the program. IMPORTANTLY, this proposal unlike
    previous proposals is focused on rewarding the best charter public
    schools, enabling these entities to replicate and expand--a necessary
    plank of any reauthorized ESEA's support for charter schools.
        All of these proposals contain critical additions to the CSP and
    ESEA, and I strongly encourage the Committee to adopt them in its
    reauthorization legislation. Unlike the majority of programs in ESEA,
    the CSP has always been intended to drive state policy changes, and
    this emphasis must not be lost. It must however be modified to ensure
    it encourages the best policies for growing quality charter schools.
    The ideas embodied in the proposals outlined above are those elements.
    And, it is only with the right policy settings that charter schools
    will fully be able to succeed.
        Today, over 600,000 children are on charter school waiting lists
    across the country, enough demand to create over 2,000 new average
    sized charter schools.\2\ And, with growing bipartisan support, demand
    from parents and grassroots activists, charter schools not only afford
    parents and children new high quality public school options, but can be
    a dramatically effective tool in our nation's education reform efforts.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ National Alliance for Public Charter School Research.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In Los Angeles, the school board recently approved a plan to turn
    over 250 campuses to charter schools and other independent school
    operators. This was a powerful showing from our nation's second largest
    school district that charter schools have a critical delivery role to
    play in educating its children, and it clearly showed that charters are
    having a competitive effect on traditional public schools. In New York
    City, the Chancellor there is planning to have 200 charter schools by
    the 2013-2014 school year educating approximately 100,000 children--a
    full \1/10\ of our nation's largest school system's children. But,
    beyond large urban school districts, in communities and locales across
    the country, charters are opening up and serving students and families
    who want and need them. In fact, of the almost 5000 charter schools, 54
    percent are in urban areas, 22 percent are in suburban communities,
    approximately 9 percent are in towns, and 15 percent are in rural areas
    according to the National Center for Education Statistics Common Core
    of Data for the 2007-2008 school year. Charter schools provide parents
    and communities across the country--from the largest city to the most
    rural--true local control over their public education, they afford
    parents a choice and they are accountable for their performance.
    Whether in rural locations benefitting from online schooling or as in
    the Los Angeles neighborhood of Granada Hills, where the Granada Hills
    Charter High School in 2003 converted from a traditional public school
    to a charter school and became the largest comprehensive independent
    conversion charter school in the nation, charters are meeting the needs
    of communities across America.
        Another example of charters meeting the needs of the local
    community, is the Alliance for College-Ready Public Schools in
    California (For more information on this network of schools, please see
    Appendix I). With significant expansion and replication plans, the
    Alliance has had to rely on private fundraising and philanthropic
    support to replicate and expand, and currently is on track to run 20
    schools in Los Angeles, making it the largest operator of charter
    schools in LA. The Alliance for College Ready-Ready Public Schools has
    thrived since opening its first schools nearly six years ago,
    consistently posting test scores and attendance rates that far outpace
    surrounding district schools. Expectations and demands on students and
    teachers are high, with an extended school day running from 7:45 a.m.
    to 3:30 p.m. as well as mandatory after-school and weekend classes for
    struggling students. All students are required to complete a rigorous
    course-load of college-preparatory classes and must repeat any classes
    in which they earn less than a C. Enrollment at high schools is limited
    to 500 students, and fewer at middle schools, while the ratio of
    students to teachers in classrooms does not exceed 25 to one. Many of
    the Alliance schools also use online learning to broaden the curriculum
    and offer individual students the opportunity to make up courses they
    failed the first time.
        The early results have been impressive, with nine of every 10
    Alliance students who enrolled as ninth-graders expected to enroll in
    two-or four-year colleges. In 2008, the Alliance launched a
    performance-based incentive program, in which teachers and
    administrators received salary bonuses when their students hit
    performance targets, merging many of today's most promising education
    reforms under one roof--autonomy as a public school in exchange for
    high stakes accountability, an ability to reward excellent and
    effective teachers, a longer school day, and rigorous expectations for
    all students enrolled in the school. Expanding the number of Alliance
    schools would send more historically underserved students to college,
    students who would otherwise be pushed out of high school by low
    expectations and a tragic lack of rigor or support.
        As evidenced by this hearing, there is strong rationale and support
    for the growth of high quality public charter schools like the Alliance
    for College-Ready Public Schools. Never before has there been such
    strong support from policymakers across the political spectrum for the
    replication and expansion of our best models. Federal policy should
    support this activity, but it must also continue to support the
    creation of new quality charter schools. Undoubtedly, the federal
    support for charter schools has been critical in taking the movement
    from 60 schools in 1994-1995 to almost 5000 in just 15 years, and it
    has been invaluable in shaping state policies that govern charter
    schools. As ESEA is reauthorized, the past objectives must be married
    with the new goals and work together to push simultaneously the
    expansion of our best charter models.
        As evidence for the strong bipartisan belief in charter schools,
    the President has included significant support for them in his fiscal
    year 2011 budget request. While I am excited about the opportunities
    stemming from this request, there is cause for concern. Included in the
    Administration's fiscal year 2011 budget is a proposal to support the
    growth of ``autonomous public schools'' in addition to charter schools.
    Although the charter school movement considers this on one hand a
    success, that traditional public schools are reacting to the pressures
    from public charter schools and are adopting successful practices from
    charters, I am concerned that the federal charter school funds will
    lose their purpose. These programs were established to support the
    growth of public charter schools, and although the Administration
    proposes many exciting ideas via its consolidation of programs in the
    fiscal year 2011 Budget's Expanding Educational Options category,
    including a way to combine support for growing high quality charter
    schools with ensuring parents have the information necessary to know
    about their choices (supply and demand), the new ability to fund
    autonomous public schools lessens the impact of the federal charter
    school programs. Furthermore, even the most successful examples of
    autonomous public schools, the Pilot Schools in Boston, are not
    achieving at the same success rates as Boston's public charter
    schools.\3\ According to ``Informing the Debate: Comparing Boston's
    Charter, Pilot, and Traditional Schools,'' a report prepared for the
    Boston Foundation, Boston's public charter schools are doing
    significantly better than pilot and traditional public schools in
    raising student achievement. This includes results from randomized
    studies designed to reduce the possibility that charters might benefit
    from having more motivated students or parents.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ http://www.tbf.org/uploadedFiles/tbforg/Utility--Navigation/
    Multimedia--Library/Reports/InformingTheDebate--Final.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The federal charter programs were designed to support the growth of
    public charter schools because state and local governments do not
    provide funding to support new charter schools. State and local
    governments already provide funds for the creation of new traditional
    public schools, including autonomous public schools. Besides being
    duplicative of current state and local funds, it is difficult to
    envision the Department of Education ensuring that all ``autonomous
    public schools'' receiving funding under this new authority are truly
    autonomous public schools. Furthermore, the achievement results of
    these schools are in many place is less than charter schools. And,
    although the Department has set out ambitious targets for what an
    autonomous public school would be, I await additional details on this
    proposal.
        I do understand though that the Administration and Congress want to
    examine all possible promising education reforms. And, I look at the
    push for truly autonomous public schools as a validation of charter
    schools having a systemic impact on public education. However, when
    ESEA is reauthorized, if it includes a new push for autonomous public
    schools in addition to public charter schools, it must ensure several
    things. In the current Congressional Budget Justification for the
    FY2011 ED Budget, the Department defines autonomous public schools as
    ``* * * charter and other public schools that have autonomy over key
    areas of their operations, including staffing, budget, time, and
    program and are subject to higher levels of accountability than other
    public schools.'' \4\ Congress must establish clear guidelines and
    principles for states that set out clear definitions for all these
    terms, and ensure ``that higher levels of accountability'' means
    closure for not meeting academic performance objectives. Clearly
    defining and defending these terms is critical for these schools to be
    successful.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget11/
    justifications/f-iit.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        A lesson can be clearly learned here form charters. Charter schools
    around the country are facing regulatory creep, where third parties are
    unfortunately infringing upon their autonomy. For instance, in
    Baltimore, KIPP Ujima Village which is Baltimore's most successful
    middle school, with its students consistently achieving some of the
    highest test scores in the state may have to dramatically alter its
    successful program because the Baltimore Teacher's Union is demanding
    dramatically higher pay--something that hasn't been a concern of the
    Union for the past seven years the school has been operation. Despite
    the fact that the school's teachers are already among the city's
    highest paid (on average receiving 18 percent more than the salary
    scale) the union is demanding 33% more than the salary scale. In
    Arizona, the state attempted to align charter schools teaching
    schedules with ones imposed on traditional public schools. Ultimately,
    a settlement was reached and the state did not impose a rigid annual
    schedule for instructing students. Clearly though, this is an example
    that in even some of the most ``progressive'' charter states, attempts
    are constantly being made to ``standardize'' charter schools in the
    name of alignment.\5\ These efforts to create a ``level playing field''
    by handcuffing charters are backwards. I would instead recommend
    removing the handcuffs from non-chartered public schools and increase
    their accountability.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/
    0804charter0804.html
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Another example comes from Wisconsin, where ``charter schools''
    were established as programs within traditional public schools and used
    as a revenue source via the federal charter programs rather than as new
    schools. When the federal funding expired or was exhausted, these
    ``charter schools'' were absorbed back into the district. This practice
    stems from a lack of clear state law on the independence of charter
    schools, and federal law must take steps to prevent states from
    ``gaming the system.''
        As the committee moves forward with potentially marking up this
    legislation and considering additional ESEA ideas with the goal of
    reauthorizing the statute, I know the national charter school movement
    stands ready to help support an ambitious agenda for reforming and
    improving our nation's public education system. In the discussions that
    surround this goal though, there are critical elements that must be
    adopted to ensure charter schools can meet the Committee's objectives
    as a powerful education reform vehicle.
        Congress must develop significant and wide-ranging policies for
    replicating and expanding our best charter schools. By increasing the
    capacity of these ``all star'' schools to serve more students, we will
    dramatically improve our nation's high school graduation rates and
    importantly our college attendance and success rates. As highlighted by
    the recent EdNext study conducted by Kevin Booker, Tim Sass, Brian
    Gill, and Ron Zimmer recently, ``charter schools are associated with an
    increased likelihood of successful high-school completion and an
    increased likelihood of enrollment at a two-or four year college is two
    disparate jurisdictions, Florida and Chicago.'' \6\ Although this
    examines just two jurisdictions, it clearly reinforces the necessity of
    policies being structured to ensure charter school success.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ http://educationnext.org/the-unknown-world-of-charter-high-
    schools/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In the name of scaling up though, the charter concept must remain
    true to its objectives and goals; public charter schools must remain
    autonomous public schools that are held accountable for their results.
    They must have control over their budget, personnel, programs, and
    other elements critical to their success. Watering down the charter
    concept in the name of scaling will not achieve the success Congress
    wants nor the public demands from public schools.
        I have greatly appreciated the chance to speak to the Committee and
    its Members today, and I will gladly take any questions you may have.
       appendix i--information on the alliance for college-ready public
                                    schools

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

        Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
        And thank you to all of you for your testimony.
        It has been mentioned by a couple of you that this is part
    of our beginning the process of--and Congressman Castle
    mentioned this--of the reauthorization of the Elementary and
    Secondary Education Act.
        And this is part of a larger set of questions in hearings
    about what are the tools and assets that are available to
    districts as they think about going through the process of
    improving their schools, reconstituting their schools.
        We had sort of strict plans, annual plans, that districts
    had to go through under No Child Left Behind. They didn't seem
    to work very well. And I know that the administration has
    talked about reconstitution of schools and what that means.
        And really, Mrs. Lake, we are following your research--
    there really has to be a portfolio of tools--options available
    to school districts and they--there is different fits in
    different places.
        But clearly, charter schools are a very important part of
    that--of that portfolio, so--just so people have the context of
    this hearing.
        I would like to--my time is limited, like your time was
    limited.
        But, Dr. Hehir, in your testimony--and I am--Eva, you said
    you had about 14 percent special ed.
        Ms. Moskowitz. Eighteen.
        Chairman Miller. Eighteen percent. So you are going to be
    included in this question.
        Low participation rates raise potential civil rights
    issues. Students with disabilities, English language learners
    and homeless students have rights as American citizens both
    granted them under the Constitution and within various federal
    education laws.
        And then in the next paragraph, you say the experiment for
    charters represents--the experiment that charters represent is
    compromised when charters do not serve the same populations as
    traditional public schools. If they fail to serve
    representative populations, their claims of being exemplary are
    significantly compromised.
        You then go on later in your testimony--and I think this is
    the tension here--it is important to emphasize here that states
    should be allowed the flexibility as there should not be
    expectations that charters always mirror the population of the
    surrounding area.
        That doesn't mean that those populations don't get served.
    It means that particular school, as in public schools in some
    cases, traditional public schools.
        And you make the very, I think, important point--and part
    of this tension is that these innovations should not be
    discouraged. The point here is that states need to reasonably
    assure the federal government that special populations' access
    to charter schools is not impeded.
        Clearly, under 94-142, that is the law of the land. Now,
    how you serve those children we do give flexibility and options
    because of the different needs of different populations.
        Dr. Ahearn has just talked about the technical assistance
    that could help school districts, help states and others, to
    develop this as we move to a more of a portfolio model, if you
    will, in helping those students achieve high educational
    outcomes.
        So I want to raise that issue--and, Mrs. Lake, this is part
    of the portfolio issue for you, too--on how do we reconcile
    those--that inherent tension here, because as we know, in many
    instances, those populations aren't represented here.
        That may be because of parental choice, that they chose not
    to--not to go there, they have chosen another educational
    opportunity for their--for their children and their students--
    the parents might have.
        Mr. Hehir. I think Mr. Richmond's testimony actually spoke
    to this, and I----
        Chairman Miller. Right.
        Mr. Hehir [continuing]. I think it is very important to
    address this issue on the authorizing level, and--because
    states vary tremendously on how they authorize charter schools.
    Some pay a lot of attention to the--serving kids in a way that
    is consistent with federal law. Others do not.
        And I think that the--that, number one, these authorizing
    regulations should be reviewed by the secretary of education
    and approved by them--by him, because we do that with special
    education regulations, and we should do that with charter
    schools, in my view.
        But also, I think another piece of this is that states
    should be able to demonstrate to the secretary that they are
    assisting charter schools.
        So on the one hand, we want to make sure that there are not
    barriers to parents being able to choose charter schools, but
    also that states are assisting charter schools, because there
    are charter schools--and I have done some research in three
    charter-like schools in Boston--that do an absolutely terrific
    job of serving diverse populations of kids with disabilities.
        Chairman Miller. Dr. Moskowitz? We have all got to live
    inside my 5 minutes, so----
        Mr. Hehir. I am sorry. I am sorry.
        Ms. Moskowitz. Well, I would just say that I was very
    involved in the first charter school for autistic children in
    New York City, and one of the first problems we had was that
    they said you couldn't select kids who were autistic. So you
    know, that creates challenges, and that speaks to your point.
        We were able, through several years of going back and
    saying, ``Look, we want to serve our autistic children. We have
    got to be able to select.'' And there are many different types
    of autism, and any given school may not be able to serve every
    child with that very, very broad label.
        The other thing, I think, to understand for high-performing
    charters--and going back to the replication bill--is that we
    are going to have to solve some of the funding issues and the
    bureaucratic issues.
        So I have 18 percent in my school. I have to serve children
    who have IEPs and, I believe, have special needs long before I
    get my measly check to educate them, because the bureaucracy--
    it is the one area, special ed, where I am not free from a
    bureaucracy that has historically served children with special
    needs very, very poorly.
        Chairman Miller. Mrs. Lake?
        Ms. Moskowitz. So I have to wait a very long time.
        Chairman Miller. So how does this fit into the idea that
    these----
        Mrs. Lake. Right.
        Chairman Miller [continuing]. Children--that their
    opportunities won't be diminished in this portfolio as we think
    about school reform?
        Mrs. Lake. Right. So the districts that are embracing
    charter schools as a part of their reform strategy aren't
    looking at each school's special ed numbers and worrying about
    those numbers.
        What they are doing instead is they are looking at the kids
    and their community that they are trying to serve and trying to
    identify gaps in that service and fill those gaps.
        And so they might say, ``You know, our kids on the autism
    spectrum are being underserved by our district schools and our
    charter schools. Let's think about whether we can put out an
    RFP for a school to serve--to serve these kids well.''
        What they are also doing is sitting down at the table with
    their charter schools and their district-run schools to work
    out some strategies for support structures and application
    processes and things to work as a partnership.
        Chairman Miller. Thank you.
        Dr. Ahearn?
        Ms. Ahearn. I think it is really important to note that
    charter schools, when they are authorized, have to in their
    application describe a particular mission that they feel their
    school can address to meet needs in the area they are going to
    locate.
        That mission may or may not attract parents of students
    with disabilities. It is designed to put in place something
    that is missing in that area or that district.
        It is also important that districts that authorize schools
    take the time and participate in the marketing of that school
    as an option for people in their districts.
        And there are a lot of districts in this country--they are
    the largest number of authorizers are school districts, so it
    is really important that they are involved in recruiting
    students for charter schools.
        Chairman Miller. But is there not also the issue of parents
    who may select a charter school--they may select a traditional
    public school, but in some instances they are essentially
    counseled out of that selection.
        Ms. Ahearn. There is----
        Chairman Miller. And that may be on the level or it may not
    be on the level, I guess is my question.
        Ms. Ahearn. There is anecdotal information around that
    there is counseling out from--of students with disabilities
    from charter schools. There is the same kind of level of
    information about counseling in of students that a district
    doesn't want to serve itself.
        So this is all hearsay. There has really never been any
    kind of review of this. And I am sure some of it goes on,
    because you do hear about it. But in essence, the emphasis must
    be on the appropriate placement of the charter school in its
    district and the appropriate recruiting of students for that
    charter school.
        Chairman Miller. My time is running out, and I raise this
    issue not to put this burden on charter schools, but I raise
    this issue because I think what is important is to understand--
    and we know that in many of the populations of students with
    disabilities, when they are properly matched with educational
    services, they thrive beyond what many people believe they are
    capable of achieving, and we have seen that to some extent on
    the Boston exams--I mean, the Massachusetts exams, where
    their--their performance.
        And I think we have to keep that in mind. And I think so we
    don't kill the innovation and the flexibility that we keep in
    mind this idea of portfolios, that there--how this population
    is served is the issue, not whether they are served in direct
    proportion to the attendance area or what you would
    traditionally think as the service area--geographically, I
    guess, is what I am trying to say.
        How we do that--we need your help. And so I just wanted to
    raise that issue at the outset, as one of the last surviving
    members of Congress who was here when we did 94-142. I still
    have a very, very strong commitment to that--to that
    legislation.
        So thank you.
        And now I recognize----
        Voice. Mrs. Biggert.
        Chairman Miller. Welcome. The gentlewoman is recognized for
    5 minutes.
        Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Had a little trouble
    here. And thank you for having this hearing.
        I was just looking at a couple of the bios and see that the
    two gentlemen were--have been in the Chicago school system and
    in Illinois, and I was in the Illinois legislature when we
    first put the charter schools--or came into existence there.
        And I can remember taking piles of paper to go to a
    national meeting with how the charter schools were created in
    Chicago, and I am glad to see that there is still an emphasis
    on that in Chicago.
        So I have got just a couple questions for--first for Mr.
    Richmond.
        Mr. Hehir has stated in the--that he believes in--charter
    schools do not serve equal percentage of students with
    disabilities--kind of goes back to this question.
        But, Mr. Richmond, you said in your testimony that it is
    the responsibility of the authorizers to ensure that the
    students with disabilities receive appropriate services. And
    how can authorizers draft better charters that ensure access to
    these students?
        And I guess authorizers, to me, is a new concept that
    obviously has just come into----
        Mr. Richmond. Sure.
        Mrs. Biggert [continuing]. Last year that was just put in,
    so----
        Mr. Richmond. Right.
        Mrs. Biggert [continuing]. Does that work to help to make
    sure that----
        Mr. Richmond. Right.
        Mrs. Biggert [continuing]. That the authorizers do this?
        Mr. Richmond. Authorizing is a new concept. It often in
    school districts has been noted--most school districts can
    authorize charter schools, but sometimes it is a state
    education department or a university or even others.
        Just to add briefly to the great conversation that has
    happened on special ed, one role of an authorizer, I believe,
    is to be actively involved in refereeing, if you will, being an
    intermediary between a charter school that has students that
    may need service and a special education department that has
    resources that could serve those students.
        One of the problems in this space is that there aren't
    enough special ed teachers, there aren't enough assistants,
    there isn't enough money for anyone. So there needs to be a--
    including district schools.
        So there really is inside these school systems a very
    active role that needs to be played to try to make sure, if a
    charter school has a student that has a disability and needs
    services that those resources are being delivered to that
    school.
        When that doesn't happen, that is why you sometimes hear
    these anecdotes about counseling out, where a school says,
    ``Well, I have tried to''--you know, to the parent, ``I have
    tried to get services for your student but we can't get them.''
    And that sometimes causes the parent to go somewhere else where
    they can get it.
        So authorizers should be refereeing that activity, helping
    to connect the resources to the student.
        Mrs. Biggert. Okay. Is there any other suggestions that you
    have for making the authorizing method for charter schools more
    efficient and provide for more quality schools?
        Mr. Richmond. Well----
        Mrs. Biggert [continuing]. To refereeing with--in all
    instances, I guess----
        Mr. Richmond. Yes.
        Mrs. Biggert [continuing]. But not just disabilities that
    would----
        Mr. Richmond. You know, I like Dr. Moskowitz's analogy
    about adding a high-capacity lane to the highway--I mean,
    this--what the All-STAR bill--one of the things it is
    contemplating doing and which speaks to me is as we--as the
    charter sector gets more sophisticated and develops more along
    those lines, we need to make sure the public oversight related
    to that keeps pace with that.
        And that is to the point in my testimony that the federal
    government has done a terrific job supporting the growth of the
    charter school sector but has not put resources into that
    public oversight function, and that is a critical need, in our
    opinion.
        Mrs. Biggert. Okay. And then is it--and this is an issue, I
    think, that comes up a lot. Is it your understanding that
    charter schools should be subject to the same school
    improvement measures, like AYP processes and sanctions, that
    apply to other public schools under ESEA?
        Mr. Richmond. Yes.
        Mrs. Biggert. Yes. That is an easy answer.
        Would anybody else like to comment on that?
        Ms. Ahearn. I think it is important to note that charter
    schools are public schools. And as part of the public system,
    they need to comply with all of the requirements, especially
    the accountable for achievement. That is a big part of the
    federal NCLB law.
        Mrs. Biggert. Anybody else?
        Ms. Young. I served as both an authorizer and a leader of
    charter schools and strongly believe that the law is correct in
    holding charter schools to an even higher level of
    accountability, because with charter schools all of them have
    to be accountable to AYP, but they also have to be able to
    prove to their authorizer that they are doing the great work
    for kids that they promised in their charter.
        They also have to prove that to the parents, because if the
    parents leave the charter school, there is no more charter
    school. And so all those--these three things make very direct
    accountability.
        Mrs. Biggert. Do you think--well, how about the----
        Mr. Polis [presiding]. Do you want a quick final question?
    That is fine.
        Mrs. Biggert. No. All right.
        Mr. Polis. Okay.
        Mrs. Biggert. I will yield back.
        Mr. Polis. Thank you, gentlelady. Thank you for your
    questions.
        The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, we have got several examples of excellent
    charter schools before us today, but it seems to me that we
    can't always assume that if we expand the number of charter
    schools they will all be as good as the ones we get.
        Let me ask anybody who wants to respond, if we expand, can
    we expect all of the charter schools to be good charter
    schools, or will some be good and some be bad?
        Ms. Young. The question----
        Mr. Scott. Dr. Young?
        Ms. Young [continuing]. If you don't--if I could answer,
    the--your question, the bill that is on the table today will
    allow us to actually have many more great charter schools
    opened than bad ones, because it is really focusing on
    expanding the grade levels and duplicating charter schools that
    are already a proven success.
        To give a specific example, two of my two younger daughters
    attended the Chime Charter School that was referenced before,
    which is a brilliant school that does special ed inclusion.
        Mr. Scott. Well, I mean, I am sure we could fund some good
    schools, but will we also----
        Ms. Young. No----
        Mr. Scott [continuing]. Be funding some bad schools?
        Ms. Young. But here is the point. Chime Charter School
    cannot grow. It is kindergarten through eighth grade. And
    because there isn't seed funding for them to add high school
    grades or replicate----
        Mr. Scott. Right. We will be doing some good schools. Will
    we also be funding some bad schools?
        Dr. Hehir?
        Mr. Hehir. I think so, because, again, charter schools vary
    tremendously. A bigger concern of mine would be unless the
    issue of underrepresentation of special populations is
    addressed in charter schools, the traditional public schools
    are going to have disproportionate numbers of those kids if you
    vastly expand the charter sector.
        So this issue needs to be addressed, I believe, in order
    for the charter school system to--and traditional public
    schools----
        Mr. Scott. I have a----
        Mr. Hehir [continuing]. Prosper.
        Mr. Scott [continuing]. Report from the Civil Rights
    Project at UCLA that suggests that if we have more charter
    schools we will have more segregation. Does anybody disagree
    with the findings in this report?
        And I ask unanimous consent that it be entered into the
    record.
        Mr. Polis. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The report, ``Choice Without Equity: Charter School
    Segregation and the Need for Civil Rights Standards,'' may be
    accessed at the following Internet address:]

    http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-
      and-diversity/choice-without-equity-2009-report/frankenberg-choices-
                            without-equity-2010.pdf

                                     ______

        Ms. Moskowitz. I was wondering if I could weigh in there.
    You know, it is very--obviously, it is a very, very important
    goal to have both racial and ethnic integration but also
    socioeconomic integration. This has been a long struggle in
    this country's history.
        You do have to understand that charter schools and
    operators come in to neighborhoods that are not integrated. So
    I operate in Harlem, and we are--by law must be reflective of
    the district. That is what our authorizer demands of us.
        Mr. Scott. Well, is that the law all over the country?
        Ms. Moskowitz. Every charter state has their own law. In
    the state of New York, we give preference to the district.
        Mr. Scott. Well, do you have information to--that would
    contradict what is in the report, that there would be a
    tendency toward segregation?
        Ms. Moskowitz. Well, I just think that there is a
    tremendous value in having schools in Harlem.
        Mr. Scott. Okay. Well----
        Ms. Moskowitz. Nineteen out of the 23 zone schools in the
    neighborhood----
        Mr. Scott [continuing]. I only have----
        Ms. Moskowitz [continuing]. Are failing schools, and so if
    I don't go into a neighborhood that is not integrated, I will
    fail to serve those kids. And that is a dilemma----
        Mr. Scott. Okay.
        Ms. Moskowitz [continuing]. That we face.
        Mr. Scott. Okay. Well, so segregation is just something we
    need to accept.
        Dr. Hehir, you are a professor doing research. One of the
    things that is--you do in research is try to isolate your
    variables, get control groups, try to replicate.
        The way we are funding charter schools and trying to find
    out what is going on--is this a good way to research charter
    schools?
        Mr. Hehir. The way we are funding them, Mr. Scott?
        Mr. Scott. The way we are trying to find out the ones that
    work and the ones that don't work. Are we doing good research?
        Mr. Hehir. I think you need to do two things. This is one
    of the reasons why I have suggested to the committee they
    consider a National Research Council study.
        We really need to get the data. There is a lot of--like Dr.
    Ahearn said, there is a lot of hearsay out there, and there
    certainly is evidence that in some places kids get counseled
    out of charters, but there is also evidence that in some places
    school districts, as Dr. Ahearn said, try to push kids into
    charters.
        We need to have--we do need to have a study that looks at
    the big picture. But however, the other type of research, which
    is research that I have conducted looking at successful both
    traditional public schools as well as pilot schools in Boston,
    which are charter-like, as it relates to serving inclusive
    populations of kids with disabilities, is also an important
    line of research.
        We need to be looking at what works. We need to be looking
    at the--at both traditional public schools as well as charter
    schools around what works.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Polis. The gentleman's time has expired.
        The chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr.
    Cassidy, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Cassidy. (OFF MIKE)
        Mr. Polis. Could you put your mike on, please?
        Mr. Cassidy. This is really bipartisan. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Polis. My first time as chair, and the microphone
    breaks.
        Mr. Cassidy. I feel I should be at a wedding, crooning.
    Anyway.
        Thank you again for--from the people of Louisiana and thank
    you--thanks to Congress, because you took a school system which
    was awful, consigning people to a life of irrelevency and you
    have given them an opportunity.
        Now, based upon that experience, which I have a little bit
    of knowledge about, what would you say to Mr. Scott's question
    regarding the issues of segregation in the New Orleans Parish
    School System?
        Mrs. Lake. Right, thanks. I mean, I think your thanks are a
    little bit misplaced. I am not responsible for what is
    happening in New Orleans--just an observer.
        But as an observer, I think--and a researcher, I think that
    the important thing to think about when you are thinking about
    segregation and studies of segregation is that charter schools'
    concentration of students--minority students is largely a
    reflection of where they choose to locate.
        They choose to locate in urban areas that are very often,
    as in New Orleans, majority minority districts. And so if you
    just take a broad stroke look at kind of the state numbers of
    kids attending charter schools, it is easy to think that that
    reflects a segregative effect.
        What you want to do as a researcher is instead look at
    where the kids--the schools that the kids left to attend the
    charter school and then the charter school, and compare those
    two schools.
        When some researchers have done that--Ron Zimmer, Brian
    Gill and others--they find very little evidence of any
    segregative effect.
        Mr. Cassidy. Now, let me ask you--next thing regarding New
    Orleans--now, I am in Louisiana, so I am aware of this. The
    school system prior to Katrina was one that destined children
    for academic failure.
        And frankly, some of the impression back there was it was
    the restrictive work rules, it was the encroachment of the
    school board upon the autonomy of schools, et cetera, that
    frustrated people.
        And Paul Vallas, who is now the superintendent--doing a
    wonderful job, and he has changed that. I think one of the
    concerns on the Republican side is that as we suggest new
    regulations we may encroach upon the freedom that Vallas and
    others have used to create the school system, defeating the
    original purpose.
        Any comments?
        Mrs. Lake. Yes. I mean, it is always a fear with the
    charter school system that over time it will come to look more
    and more like the system that it tried to fix or change.
        And you know, it is a delicate balance. When we talk about
    performance accountability, we first go to the idea of
    regulation. If we can instead talk about performance outcomes
    and stay at kind of the high level, rather than regulating
    inputs, we are in pretty good shape, I think, with the charter
    sector.
        And I think Paul Vallas would probably agree with that.
        Mr. Cassidy. In fact, on the authorization aspect of it,
    Mr. Richmond, it almost seemed like if you take as your primary
    variable how the kids do, then everything else takes care of
    itself.
        I mean, if your dependent variable is that the guardrails
    are up, but the primary variable is do they get to--safely to
    the end of the road, then that seems like a better way to
    approach the problem than having, you know, the traditional way
    of----
        Mr. Richmond. Right.
        Mr. Cassidy [continuing]. A 360 microscope.
        Mr. Richmond. Well, I think that is right. And you want to
    make sure that whatever we all talk about and have these good
    discussions that that is our ultimate objective. Are we doing
    things that help more kids get a better education and go on to
    succeed in life?
        And we want to have those guardrails on the side so we
    don't lose kids along the way. We want all kids to be able to
    get there.
        Our organization has done a lot of work in New Orleans with
    Paul Pastorek and with Paul Vallas. And what has struck me is
    the comparison. That was a closed system before the hurricane.
    There was really not energy, not vitality. There wasn't
    community engagement in public schools. It was closed. It was a
    closed bureaucracy.
        And what you have seen happen is the charter sector has
    opened it. The level of community engagement in public
    education in New Orleans now is astronomically higher than it
    was before. It didn't exist before. How----
        Mr. Cassidy. And that crosses all socioeconomic----
        Mr. Richmond. Absolutely. Absolutely. These are schools
    that are in communities throughout the entire city serving the
    populations of the entire city and involving in a much more
    open way and, most importantly, better results for kids.
        Mr. Cassidy. Now, let me ask you--you or Mrs. Lake--you
    have both done research there, apparently. There is a concern
    that we may fund bad schools. Now, it is my understanding,
    though, that the charter schools in New Orleans that are
    performing poorly are being shut down or changed over, is that
    correct?
        Mr. Richmond. It is a legitimate question about are we
    going to have more bad schools potentially. There is no
    guarantee in this. There could be, and there will be in the
    future, schools that open that aren't as good as we want. That
    absolutely will happen. It happens in the district sector and
    it happens in the charter sector.
        The key is the charter sector is better at closing those
    schools. In the district sector they continue on indefinitely.
        Mr. Polis. The gentleman's time has expired.
        The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
    Hinojosa, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you, Acting Chairman Polis.
        I want to commend Chairman Miller, thank him for having
    this hearing on H.R. 4330, entitled The All Students Achieving
    Through Reform Act.
        As we move to increase educational opportunities for all
    students, it is critical, in my opinion, to ensure that all
    children have access to a high-quality education. Furthermore,
    this includes our public charter schools.
        I commend Congressman Jared Polis for his leadership to
    author this bill.
        I have two questions for Professor Thomas Hehir. In your
    testimony, you mention that students with disabilities and
    English language learners participate in charters in much
    smaller numbers than they exist in the student population at
    large.
        Based on your expertise, give me the two percentages, one
    on ELLs who currently participate in public charter schools,
    and the percentage estimates for ELLs with disabilities in
    charter schools.
        Mr. Hehir. I don't--and nor do I think anybody can give you
    the overall numbers as far as that is concerned. My research is
    in specific communities. And this is, again, one of the reasons
    why I think you need to have a study that really looks at these
    issues systemically across the whole country.
        But in the communities that I have looked at--Boston, San
    Diego, Los Angeles--the percentage participation of children
    with disabilities is significantly below what exists in
    traditional public schools, and there are very little to none
    children with significant disabilities being served in them.
        And that raises very serious concerns, in my way of
    thinking.
        Mr. Hinojosa. Okay.
        Mr. Hehir. The same is true with----
        Mr. Hinojosa. Time is of the essence, and I will interrupt
    you.
        Mr. Hehir. Well----
        Mr. Hinojosa. I will wait to see if there is some studies
    done on that--on the answers to my questions.
        Can you elaborate on one other recommendation you made that
    the federal government possibly require states to proactively
    address issues of access involving special populations as a
    condition for receiving federal funds? Give me your thoughts.
        Mr. Hehir. Well, again, my thoughts about this are informed
    by my experience in the area of special education, where it
    wasn't until the federal government stood up to the plate and
    insisted that all children be educated that they were.
        And the special education--the federal involvement in
    special education has, I think, been very positive. And so in
    my view, the--given that what we know about underserving of
    these populations, it is important for the federal government
    to play a role in this, both in terms of making sure that
    states monitor this issue, but also in--equally important, in
    my view, is states assisting charters in addressing this issue.
        Mr. Hinojosa. I want to state that I served on the state
    board of education in Texas and was chairman of special
    populations committee, which included bilingual education
    students, gifted and talented, children with disabilities and
    migrant and seasonal farm workers' children.
        And I found that the mindset there was that the smallest
    percentage investment of our budget went to the special
    populations. And so I met with parents and they just couldn't
    understand how we didn't give them same opportunities as
    needed.
        So I agree what you are saying, and I want to follow up
    with you later on.
        My next question is to the first panelist, Dr. Moskowitz.
    Yesterday Univision plus several other groups, including the
    Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the U.S. Department of
    Education, many Latino leaders and community-based
    organizations launched the Es El Momento, which translates into
    The Time is Now Campaign.
        This is a multimillion-dollar, 3-year national education
    initiative aimed at increasing high school graduation rates,
    college readiness, college completion and engaging Latino
    parents in the education of their children.
        So can you tell me what strategies have public charter
    schools used to engage low-income children and the minority
    parents in the education of their children?
        Ms. Moskowitz. Thank you for your question. We serve at
    Success Academy charter schools--where all of our schools are
    Title I schools. And I just came from a meeting yesterday
    morning where we have 514 children at one of my schools, and we
    had 507 parent representatives. We had a few women go into
    labor so they were not there in the morning.
        But we have enormous parental involvement in our schools,
    and we are often asked, ``Well, how do you get on a math
    night--how do you have 100 percent attendance?'' And it takes a
    lot of hard work and a lot of relentlessness on the part of
    teachers and school leaders.
        But we say to parents from the get go something that I
    think has gotten lost in America, that----
        Mr. Hinojosa. I apologize. Time has run out, and there are
    other members that need to ask--have time to ask their
    questions. Thank you for your response.
        Mr. Polis. And I remind members of the committee that
    questions can be submitted in writing up to 24 hours, and the
    panel will answer those for the record--14 days you have to
    submit those in writing.
        I thank the gentleman from Texas.
        And the chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes. Would
    that it were more time.
        I have also been informed, by the way, that we will have
    votes starting at about quarter till, perhaps a little after,
    so this committee will probably go until right before noon. We
    will not be reconvening, so I will ask all members to stick
    within their 5 minutes. Try to be a little bit briefer if at
    all possible.
        I will start with a couple of quick questions.
        Dr. Moskowitz, you mentioned that your school has about 18
    percent special education. How does that compare to the rate
    for New York City or the state of New York?
        Ms. Moskowitz. In charters or the district?
        Mr. Polis. For the district.
        Ms. Moskowitz. Well, in our co-located buildings, we are
    higher than three of the four schools.
        Mr. Polis. Okay. The next question is a follow-up question
    for Dr. Ahearn. And a couple of you mentioned counseling in. I
    am well aware of that and have experienced that in the charter
    schools that I ran.
        I would like you to define that for the committee and talk
    about that practice.
        Ms. Ahearn. Well, when parents are--have a child who is
    having difficulties, that parent will frequently go to the
    traditional school and talk with a counselor and say, you know,
    ``What is best for my child,'' or, ``What can we do to help?''
        And rather than trying to perhaps plan a program within the
    traditional school, it is not uncommon for a counselor or
    anyone that parent speaks to to say, ``Why don't you take your
    child to another school?'' And it may be a good recommendation.
    It may not be.
        We don't know a lot about how this happens, but we know it
    happens because we have had charter schools complain that
    students come because the counselor told me to come here.
        Mr. Polis. Would you say it sometimes happens that students
    are counseled that the district feels--the districts might not
    want to serve students that they feel are more expensive to
    serve? Is that what you feel might be at play?
        Ms. Ahearn. I don't know if it is more expensive to serve
    or more difficult to serve, because some children are more
    difficult to serve than others.
        Mr. Polis. Thank you.
        The next question is for both Dr. Ahearn and Professor
    Hehir. With regard to economic equivalency--and so while some
    charter schools might not serve the same percentage or might
    serve higher percentages of special ed students, there are some
    agreements or charters that establish economic equivalency in
    that--and, for instance, in examples of charter schools that I
    started, New America School, it pays a set special education
    amount to the district who then handles the special education
    needs for the charter.
        And I am wondering if you can comment briefly on the--how
    effective or widespread that sort of practice is.
        Ms. Ahearn. The practices vary greatly by state. And one of
    the models, as you just explained, is commonly called an
    insurance model, where a charter school has to pay a certain
    amount to its authorizing district per student, and then the
    authorizing district is responsible for taking care of special
    education in that school, but the charter school usually has
    very little, if any, control over making that happen.
        In other cases, funding is done on a completely different
    basis.
        Mr. Polis. And my question for Professor Hehir would be is
    that a reasonable or fair way to do it, given that, of course,
    this is a network, the needs of a student might be best met
    somewhere else?
        Is this type of economic equivalency, where you can make
    sure that it makes economic sense, a fair or reasonable way to
    do it?
        Mr. Hehir. I think in theory it is. I think one of the
    issues around serving kids with disabilities in charter schools
    is if you give parents the true choice of charter schools,
    there will be parents who will want to enroll their children in
    charter schools that may have expensive and unusual needs that
    the charter school is not able to meet.
        It is not that they don't want to. They are unable to meet
    it. Charter schools----
        Mr. Polis. As, I might add, might be many other schools in
    that district that are public schools.
        Mr. Hehir. Exactly, but the public schools have the backup
    of the school system.
        Mr. Polis. Right.
        Mr. Hehir. And charter schools do not. Having a mechanism
    like you described I think is very important, whether it is
    something that is created by charters themselves in
    collaboration with one another or it is created by the state or
    the local school district.
        I think that type of mechanism is central here.
        Mr. Polis. Thank you.
        I would like to also respond briefly on the issue of
    segregation. I believe that this bill can help reduce
    segregation by giving a preference to schools that serve low-
    income students, particularly through cooperative agreements,
    including transportation.
        I would also like to share with our committee briefly the
    experience in our district of the Ricardo Flores Magon Academy,
    which is a K-8 school that has a longer school day, 5 hours of
    core subject instruction, summer enrichment, daily tennis and
    chess lessons, and the results really speak for themselves.
        First of all, it has 93 percent free and reduced lunch,
    higher percentage than the school district; 90 percent Latino;
    and 80 percent English language learners. Its student outcomes
    are, simply put, incredible and transformative.
        Ninety-three percent of the third graders scored proficient
    or advanced in reading, compared to 73 percent for Colorado.
    And each student, every student, 100 percent of third graders
    scored proficient or advanced in math, compared to 69 percent
    of Colorado.
        And again, while the school is 90 percent Latino, and the
    district is slightly less than that, these students are
    achieving, and that is why students choose that school.
        You have a sometimes cross odds of economic diversity and
    ethnic diversity. We have another successful charter school in
    Pueblo, Colorado, Cesar Chavez Academy, that had very
    successful test results, started out at a--very high percentage
    Latino.
        As all the parents saw that it had very good test results,
    it attracted a lot more white families. So it became less
    segregated but it served less at-risk kids as a result. So you
    can't have it both ways sometimes.
        I think that charter schools that have as a goal serving
    diverse communities are what this bill seeks to fund.
        With that, my own time has expired.
        And I would like to recognize the gentlelady from
    Washington, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I have a number of questions, too. I wanted to start with
    Dr. Moskowitz, and I just wanted to ask you to talk a little
    bit more about the autonomy at the charter schools and why that
    is so important, and maybe give us an example.
        And then I had--my second question was you also mentioned
    that in the last 50 years that we have really increased funding
    for our educational system but yet we aren't seeing the
    outcomes associated with that increased spending. And I wanted
    to ask if you would give us an example of how you are able to
    do more with less.
        Ms. Moskowitz. Sure. Well, my example of the freedom that
    gets to the heart of teaching and learning is the New York City
    contract, teachers union contract, gives one 50-minute prep
    period a day. We give our teachers three, minimally. Sometimes
    it is four.
        But we expect an incredibly high level of preparation. I
    don't think that the teachers union contract giving one 50-
    minute period could result in high levels of preparation, so
    that would be one, but there are many, many other examples.
        In terms of spending, I am most familiar with the details
    in New York City, but we went from $15 billion--in the year
    2000, a $15 billion operating budget to a $21 billion operating
    budget today.
        Charters have not been the beneficiary of all that money.
    We get significantly less than the district. We get $12,443 and
    the buildings that I am co-located with get between $19,000 and
    $21,000 a child. So there is a wide disparity in funding.
        How we are able to do it--and the ``it'' is important to
    understand. It is a longer school day, a longer school year. We
    go 6 days a week starting in second grade, and we go from 7:30
    in the morning till 4:30; if you are struggling, from 4:30 to
    5:30. Meanwhile, we are offering art, music, chess, dance, and
    every kid plays a team sport.
        We are able to do that with larger class sizes, frankly. I
    have 28 in kindergarten. And we are able to do that because we
    aren't subject to a Soviet-style procurement system, and that--
    if you look at the New York City school system, how they find
    basketballs for the amount of money they pay for basketballs, I
    don't know, because I haven't been able to find them for that
    price. We are able to be nimble about our procurement.
        Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Great. Great. Thanks.
        Mrs. Lake, I wanted to--I was intrigued that you were--your
    center is at the University of Washington, as I come from
    Washington State, and we have not been successful in allowing
    for charter schools in Washington State yet--served in the
    state legislature during some of those debates, and I know that
    we have--we battled this issue for many years.
        And one of the arguments used against charter schools was
    that they would cream the best, and especially in high--and
    take away from those that have high needs. I find the
    discussion related to special needs to be very interesting.
        I have a son with special needs, so I am starting--he is
    three, so I am just starting through this whole process, and I
    must admit I am looking for options right here in D.C. because
    I want those options for my son.
        But can you just speak to the high needs--meeting the needs
    of a high-need area, especially as it relates to--and how
    charter schools can do that?
        Mrs. Lake. Right. Well, we are not only fellow
    Washingtonians, but we are also fellow moms with special need
    kids.
        Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Oh.
        Mrs. Lake. So we are bonding. [Laughter.]
        On the question of creaming, I mean, that was one of the
    earliest concerns about this charter school movement. I think
    at this point we don't hear a lot of discussion about it,
    because the facts just haven't panned out to support the idea
    that charter schools would go after the elite kids in
    districts.
        You know, overall, charter schools tend to serve much
    higher numbers of minority and kids who qualify for free and
    reduced lunch. And then when you make kind of apples to apples
    comparisons in the districts where they are located, they tend
    to be basically on par or more aggressively serving those kids.
        And the reason is if you think about it from the
    perspective of somebody who wants to open a school, it is hard
    work, doesn't pay very well. Folks like Dr. Moskowitz are not
    going to go into the business to serve kids who are already
    being well served.
        And the kids who are coming to charter schools are not
    coming to charter schools to escape, you know, a high-
    performing school. They are coming to escape a low-performing
    school. So I think, you know, it is really time to put the
    creaming argument to rest.
        I think there are some second generation issues with the
    charter schools that--with special needs----
        Mr. Polis. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Great. Great. Thank you.
        Mr. Polis. I would like to encourage--strongly encourage
    committee members to, if possible, stick to 3 minutes so that
    everybody can get in. You are really recognized for 5, but try
    to keep it below that if possible.
        With that, I would like to recognize the gentleman who cast
    his 20,000th vote in the United States Congress yesterday, my
    esteemed colleague and chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Kildee of
    Michigan.
        Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And some of those
    votes were right.
        In my home state of Michigan, students attending
    traditional public schools outperformed those attending charter
    schools in the Michigan math and English language arts test
    over the last 4 years, by 10 to 21 percentage points.
        I find this data alarming. While there may be some model
    charter schools, in my state, on average, these schools are not
    producing results as good as the traditional public school
    system.
        Now, I know, just--I know Michigan very well, having lived
    there 80 years--that one of the reasons, obviously, in Michigan
    is that the charter schools are concentrated in your older
    industrial cities that are in some degree of decay.
        You don't find many charter schools out in the wealthier
    areas, so that is one of the factors why the--they are not
    performing as well as the public school system.
        I will start with you--let's see--Mr. Richmond first, then
    Mr. Hehir. What other reasons might there be that they are not
    performing as well as the traditional public school?
        Mr. Richmond. One reason is that in some places weak
    proposals for charter schools are approved that should never
    have been approved in the first place.
        We know a lot more now in 2010 than we did 15 years ago
    about how to evaluate someone who wants to start a school and
    how to do a better job of making the right picks, how to
    approve more good schools and not approve weak schools. We
    didn't know how to do that very well when this all started. We
    now know how to do that much better than we did before.
        The challenge is we do have excellent schools around the
    country, but then we had schools that were approved 10 or 15
    years ago that maybe they shouldn't have been, but now they are
    here. And we need to--they either need to improve their
    performance or need to be closed.
        So one of the roles of the authorizer, first, is to make
    those selections like your voting record--get it right as often
    as possible, right? And then, after the schools are running,
    the authorizer should be enforcing those high standards and
    allowing good schools to stay open, supporting the creation of
    more good schools and closing those that are not delivering a
    high-quality education.
        Mr. Kildee. Mr. Hehir?
        Mr. Hehir. Again, I think that the studies in this area are
    all over the place. I mean, one of the better controlled
    studies which was done in Massachusetts by a colleague of mine
    at Harvard, Tom Kane, compared people who were successful--
    children who were successful in charter lotteries with children
    who were unsuccessful in charter lotteries.
        So this, in other words, is apples to apples. And he
    actually found that the charters were performing at a higher
    level, not a lower level. So I think these studies are all over
    the place, and I think that is one of the reasons why it is
    important to do some much more extensive research in this area,
    in my view.
        And I think that the Congress and this bill supports that.
        Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Polis. Thank you.
        The gentleman has yielded his time back.
        To make sure that everybody gets in, we will be setting the
    timer to 3 minutes, and I ask my colleagues to ensure that the
    rest of their colleagues can speak that they get their comments
    and questions in in a 3-minute period.
        With that, the chair recognizes the gentlelady from
    California, Ms. Chu, for 3 minutes.
        Ms. Chu. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I was interested, Mr. Richmond, in your statement on the
    necessity for improving the process for authorizing charter
    schools. And I am in particular concerned about English learner
    students. I represent a district in California with many of
    them.
        And in California, they are looking at data with regard to
    English learner students and thus far it shows that charter
    schools are enrolling fewer English learners than traditional
    schools, and many do not differentiate their program or their
    instruction to address the various English proficiency levels
    of their students.
        And there is also a study that just came out for
    Massachusetts which identified several significant issues
    regarding how charter schools are not meeting the educational
    needs of English learners. And it reveals that fewer English
    learners and fewer recent immigrants are enrolled in charter
    schools.
        And there are also some concerns that charter schools are
    only keeping the best students and counseling ESL students back
    to public school.
        Can you tell me whether charter schools are subject to the
    same data collection in terms of attrition and also data on
    English learner students, as well as the other kinds of data,
    including gender and race?
        And should this data reporting be in the reports that are
    submitted by charter schools, especially as its relevant to
    authorizing?
        Mr. Richmond. Sure. A common theme developing around the--a
    need for better data, better research, and I would echo and
    reinforce that strongly.
        What we have seen across the country--that there isn't a
    single charter school sector. There are 41 charter school
    sectors, 41 different states, each with their own different
    laws, their different practices, their different requirements
    around data collection, their different habits around who is
    paying attention, if anyone is paying attention.
        And some states do this work well, and some do it much less
    well. So to your point specific--well, we want to learn from
    those that are doing well and help replicate what works. So I
    think it is important to realize that we have that opportunity,
    that we can see what does work well and try to replicate that.
        To English language learner students, one of my
    experiences--when we did this in Chicago, one of the great
    benefits from the beginning we didn't fully understand at the
    time is that we included all the kids in the charter schools in
    our student information data system.
        So we knew who they were. We knew their addresses. We knew
    whether they needed special education services, English
    language learner services, whether they were free and reduced
    lunch. And that allowed us as a system to do a much better job
    making sure those kids were getting the services they needed.
        If you don't know that, if you have an authorizer that
    doesn't have that information, it is very difficult to address
    the concerns you are concerned about. So we want to see a much
    better job of authorizers doing that data collection.
        Mr. Polis. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        The chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms.
    Woolsey, for 3 minutes.
        Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I think we have more time than you realize. I mean, once
    the bells ring, we have got 20 minutes.
        Mr. Polis. We will absolutely go back for a second round
    after everybody has completed, if time permits.
        Ms. Woolsey. So I want to thank the witnesses and
    congratulate the charter movement for fulfilling what I
    believed was to be your mission in 1993 when I was sworn in
    here and became a member of this committee.
        And that mission was to prove that--to educators and to
    authorizers that in many, many cases there--new and better
    education practices work.
        So I have been on this committee, as I said, for 18 years.
    And over that time, the charter movement was born and grew. And
    later, No Child Left Behind was passed. And now we are
    preparing to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education
    Act.
        So back to the charter and your speech--your presentations
    today. You have shown us that absolutely more individual lesson
    plans, parental involvement, more autonomy, more freedom--all
    of that works, including chess or dance. Of course it works.
        You have provided members of this committee some very
    proven successful practices to the public education system.
        So I want to ask you, how are we going to integrate this
    into elementary-secondary education reauthorization without
    splitting our public education system down the middle? You have
    shown us that there are better practices. The public education
    system has better practices when it comes to English learners,
    to special needs kids, to homeless.
        How are we going to marry that together? Because I am
    scared to death that we are going to start marching down a path
    where we have two public education systems, one for those that
    are better off, and one for those in need. And I am not going
    to be satisfied with that. That will not work.
        You have proven to us that if we integrate new and better
    ways into the public education system, we will be able to
    educate all children, and all children--in a world so they can
    compete worldwide.
        So that is my question to you. Does anybody want--have time
    to respond?
        Ms. Young. Absolutely. In Los Angeles, they made a historic
    vote yesterday that didn't make everybody in the charter school
    movement happy, but they voted to give several dozen of their
    campuses to internal staff teams that create great schools to
    charter schools to create schools.
        And by bringing the charter school movement into
    competition but also collaboration with district families and
    teams, they began that integration. And I think that is going
    to be one of the ways that other school districts can focus on
    this.
        Mr. Polis. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        The chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hare,
    for 3 minutes.
        Mr. Hare. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Moskowitz, let me just give you my opinion here. I have
    heard you mention Soviet-style twice in your testimony. While I
    appreciate the fact that you are genuinely concerned and
    obviously into the thing, I think the rhetoric on that might
    get toned down a bit.
        I mean, I think we are all in this to try to make sure--but
    you know, the Soviet-style, I think, to be honest with you,
    troubles me greatly.
        Let me just ask you--the panel quickly--I represent West
    Central Illinois, a lot of rural area. And my concern is the
    rural schools face a lot of unique challenges, such as limited
    resources, small student body populations, geographic
    isolation.
        And I am concerned that promoting charters in rural America
    may not be--may be unrealistic. My question for this panel is
    can charter school models be replicated in rural communities.
    If they can be--or outside of urban areas, and if they can, can
    you explain to me how you can do that?
        Ms. Young. Absolutely. There are wonderful replication
    models of charter schools throughout the country, and a lot of
    those charter schools are using a combination of students
    coming to a particular campus to have some of their classes and
    then doing some of the work from home in online programs.
        And this is happening in rural areas throughout the
    country, and it makes it possible for students who would
    otherwise ride a school bus an hour and a half each way to
    school to instead come to the school site 2 or 3 days a week
    but then have the other days to use that time more productively
    by doing their course work online.
        And so we are seeing that growing throughout the country.
    It is also the case that there are school districts that have
    only one or two schools in them that are choosing to make a
    charter school and a non-charter school in that school district
    so that they can have the experimentation of both and have more
    options for kids.
        Mr. Hare. (OFF MIKE)
        Ms. Young. It is by agreement with the school district to
    make sure that that funding is available.
        Mr. Hare. (OFF MIKE)
        Ms. Ahearn. Certainly, and I think also we are working on
    the topic of special education and virtual schools at this
    moment, and it is really important that a lot of innovation has
    been grown out of the virtual movement, moving toward virtual
    schools, and delivery of special education services as well. So
    it can work.
        Mr. Richmond. I will add, in 10 seconds, if you--you know,
    Wisconsin actually has had many small school districts adopt
    and grow charter schools--dozens actually embraced by
    superintendents in Wisconsin--as a means of doing what you are
    interested in.
        Mr. Polis. The gentleman's time has expired.
        The chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
    Tierney, for 3 minutes.
        Mr. Tierney. Okay. I haven't moved. I am still from
    Massachusetts, so we----
        Mr. Polis. Yes, you are. The chair stands corrected.
        Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
        Look, I think we have good public schools and bad public
    schools. We have good charter schools and bad charter schools.
    And the good public schools do a lot of the things that the
    good charter schools do. Some do longer days, longer school
    years, you know, and all of that stuff.
        So I mean, I think that Ms. Woolsey gave you a lot of
    credit, but I think it should be shared, that there are good
    public schools in a lot of different places.
        But in the aggregate, the reports that I am familiar with
    shows that charter schools perform slightly below the public
    schools. In the aggregate, charter students demonstrate
    slightly lower proficiency on national tests. And in the
    aggregate, a slightly higher percentage of charters fail to
    make annual yearly progress.
        So as I say, some are low performing and, as one of our
    witnesses said, we have some that are low performing, but they
    are allowed to stay open for various reasons. Well, that is the
    same thing with public schools.
        And we have some schools that sometimes are approved, and
    now they are here, and we have to do something about that.
    Well, that is the same thing with public schools.
        So the concern that I have here is we are recreating the
    wheel, that we know what works. In the last panel it
    apparently--by the committee here to have duplicate hearings on
    charter schools on that--is that some things work.
        We have now done a lot of research and studying. We know
    what works. The thing I am concerned is why we are trying to
    make it work in one area instead of not just making it work in
    one area but trying to bifurcate it off of there.
        So you know, now they know that some don't work, so they
    want help for the 3 percent of students that are in charters to
    sort of replicate what is right and move away from what is
    wrong.
        There is nothing in my observation that stops local
    education agencies and states from doing what is right, except
    maybe we don't have enough public pressure, and we are not
    moving through on that.
        We can hire, promote, retain principals and teachers that
    operate the way we want them to. We could support them. We
    could even work with teachers to do peer review and weed out
    the ones that aren't doing as well as we want, or mentor or
    train the ones that have to do better and concentrate on that
    part.
        But I wonder, what could states and local education
    agencies do with the $310 million that the president proposes
    for charter schools. Instead of taking it, you know, and
    putting it there, instead of adding it and doing the things
    that are right in the existing system, I think it would make a
    world of distance--difference.
        And I wonder why it is in charter schools we will support
    public money for bricks and mortars, where historically we have
    never done that for the public schools, and wouldn't those
    public schools have liked to have had that opportunity.
        So I just have that question going through my mind--is it
    would--that this is not actually helping but maybe just sort of
    bleeding it out and taking the concentration away from what we
    need to do for all children, not just 3 percent.
        I want to leave you all with a question and ask you, if you
    would, and if the chair would ask you, to submit it in writing
    to me. It has been mentioned that mandates and regulations are
    something that charter schools have to be shielded from.
        And that is why, you know, you want to do--so if you would
    provide to the committee so that I can look at it as well as
    the other members what alleged mandates and regulations do you
    say charter schools should be shielded from, and that would
    assist us, I think, in our work.
        I yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Polis. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
        The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Nevada, Ms. Titus,
    for 3 minutes.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would like to continue this same line of thought. Nevada
    has had a mixed experience with charter schools. So we have
    what we call empowerment schools. Empowerment schools are, in
    many ways, similar to charter schools. They have a lot of
    autonomy in exchange for accountability in governance,
    budgeting, staffing, instruction and time.
        But they operate on extended days, extended years, more
    flexibility in hiring, more flexibility in use of their per-
    student allocation of funding. And they have proven to--shown
    that they do better.
        The way they are different, though, is rather than focusing
    on one particular population, they still remain neighborhood
    schools, so they serve all the children in the neighborhood.
    They just serve them better.
        And they are accountable to the school district, as opposed
    to being approved by the state board of education, which makes
    them really more centered in that community, with parent
    involvement and teachers and principals.
        I just wonder how you could argue that charter schools are
    really a better way to go than, say, empowerment schools that
    would, indeed, use the funding that Mr. Tierney addressed in a
    fairer kind of broader way.
        Ms. Young. One of the ways is that this 75-page document is
    the California charter school law, and most of the charter
    school laws in the country are that small compared to, say, the
    average state ed code, which is about 2,000 pages.
        And that gives charter schools the opportunity to really
    tailor their program to the students they serve. For example,
    if a charter school wants to have specialized programs, or
    teachers that are trained in a particular rigorous area that
    matches the needs of the kids that wouldn't otherwise belong in
    a school because of the education code, charter schools can do
    that.
        And so one of the things that traditional public schools
    can do is get the same kind of waivers as charter schools get
    if they want to improve their programs, and that is one of the
    ways we are seeing that charter school law influenced
    traditional school districts, because now, more and more,
    traditional school districts are asking for waivers from the
    regulations that keep them from being able to do charter-
    school-like things.
        Ms. Titus. And I think that is accurate, and that is why I
    wonder why we don't spread that money across, allowing more of
    those schools to become empowerment schools rather than just
    centralizing it with charter schools.
        Ms. Young. Well, I think the key reason is not--I don't
    think that it is one or the other. It needs to be both. But
    when you have an empowerment school, in terms of make it
    sustainable and to make it a high-quality school, it needs to
    have at least solid independent governance. It needs to be
    judged based on student outcomes.
        The leadership of the school needs to have the ability to
    manage their own budget and to hire and fire the people who
    work in the school. And if it has all of those things, and
    freedom from the regulations that--them away, it will be
    successful.
        Mr. Polis. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        The chair would also like to thank Dr. Moskowitz, who has
    to depart, as will the rest of us shortly.
        With that, the chair recognizes the gentlelady from New
    York, Ms. Clarke, for 3 minutes.
        Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        It is good seeing you, Dr. Moskowitz. Dr. Moskowitz and I
    served on the New York City council together, so it is good to
    see her in her new capacity here in Washington.
        Let me just raise a couple of issues about the charter
    schools as they were established in the early 1990s. It was
    sort of our thinking that we could use these as incubators for
    innovative educational ideas and new teaching methods and that
    ultimately these new ideas and teaching methods would be shared
    with and scaled up for dissemination in the wider public school
    community.
        In New York City, this is not taking place. And I am a bit
    concerned, because I think you have heard a lot of the concerns
    coming from my colleagues about a bifurcated public school
    system--there is a public non-charter school system, and there
    is the public school system. And it is as though never the
    twain shall meet.
        I know that in speaking with a number of the chartered
    schools in my district, there is never a conversation in our
    governance structure with the city's department of education
    where charter school administrators actually meet with the
    regular public school administrators to talk about what their
    experiences have been.
        I am just a bit concerned about where we get to the tipping
    point and what is the end game here. And I don't know whether
    that has been a conversation in the charter school movement,
    but I think it is a very valid one.
        And when people talk about cherry-picking, let me just
    explain how that happens. There are some parents who are in the
    know. There are some parents who constantly interact with other
    folks and navigate the system very well.
        Those parents are the parents who always look after their
    children's education and they are always going to find the very
    best educational system for their children. They tend to be a
    very slim part of a large community of parents that never know
    what is going on.
        And what I have found is that a lot of the parents who
    could best benefit from the charter school movement are never
    informed, never get the message. So you do get this
    perpetuation of a cherry-picking phenomenon, whether you intend
    to or not.
        And I think we really need to address that. In a huge
    public school system like New York City's it is becoming very
    contentious. So I would just like to get some feedback from you
    about how we get to this tipping point or at least this
    reconciliation so that when we talk about doing ESEA we know
    what direction we are heading in and we are not heading for a
    collision course.
        Mr. Richmond. I will try to speak to that very quickly. I
    think you are right, there has been less direct sharing from
    school to school between charters and district schools than
    people expected. I think that is an accurate assessment. People
    expected more, and there is less happening than we want.
        But where we have seen it is on a higher level around
    standards, better teacher recruiting, better teacher training,
    better assessments--policy level those lessons have carried
    over into the rest of public education--reauthorization of ESEA
    now.
        Mr. Polis. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        The chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr.
    Payne, for 3 minutes, our final questioner.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
        Sorry that I was unable to hear the testimony, but it is
    something that I am very interested in. As a former public
    school teacher, I certainly have a strong interest in
    education. And I do think that the charter school movement have
    really provided some good results.
        We have North Star Academy in my district that has done
    very well. It is--was visited by the Secretary of Education,
    Duncan.
        I just would like to reiterate what the gentlelady from New
    York says, that, you know, your job is not to worry about those
    students who are not in the charter movement. I mean, you are
    in the charter movement and therefore your obligation is to
    your movement and moving forward with it.
        However, it is a system, as it has been indicated by the
    gentlelady from New York, that it takes, first of all, a parent
    who is--has initiative, so the argument could be, ``Well, why
    should you penalize children of parents with initiative?'' Very
    good argument.
        The thing that we have in our state is that, you know, once
    a child is in, then the lottery allows them to have siblings.
    So you got the parent who has a lot of initiative. She gets the
    first child in. The other siblings automatically qualify
    because that is the way they do it in New Jersey.
        And once again, the expulsion from charter schools
    certainly is high. The number of charter school children that
    have been put out and back into the public school system is
    definitely an indication that, once again, we have a--sort of a
    select--you have to earn the right to stay, whereas public
    schools--by law, you must stay.
        And so I think that what you are doing is fine. I would
    just hope that--matter of fact, in New Jersey, you can't have
    more than 15 kids in a class. I wish that were for every
    school.
        So I am not knocking and certainly complimenting the
    success, because we have them in my town. I am just basically
    concerned about the others, and that is, like I said, not your
    worry. That is the public schools' problem, and they should
    deal with it.
        But I do see more of a segregated type of a system, and I
    just hate to think that we are getting back to 1896 and Plessy
    v. Ferguson of equal but separate is okay.
        I think my 3 minutes are up. Yield back.
        Mr. Polis. Thank the gentleman.
        I would like to thank all of our panelists today. We deeply
    appreciate you spending your time educating this committee.
        I would like to thank the many progressive and civil rights
    organizations that support the All-STAR bill, including the
    Center for American Progress, the Thomas Fordham Foundation,
    the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights, the United Negro
    College Fund, the National Council of La Raza, and the
    Education Quality Project, as well as the Black Alliance for
    Educational Options, for helping to support this bill.
        And thank you for educating our committee about a bill that
    can make sure that charter schools have strategies to serve
    more at-risk students, can help desegregate our schools by
    looking at cooperative agreements and transportation agreements
    to help provide more diversity in our charter schools, and a
    bill that helps replicate successful charter schools as well as
    ensuring that there are strategies to close or intervene in
    unsuccessful charter schools.
        We can all hope that this can move the movement forward and
    help ensure that the promise of hope and opportunity is a real
    one for more American families.
        Without objections, members will have 14 days to submit
    additional materials or questions for the hearing record.
        And without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
        [The statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Hon. Vernon J. Ehlers, a Representative in
                      Congress From the State of Michigan

        Chairman Miller and Senior Republican Kline, I thank you for
    holding this important hearing on maintaining quality in charter
    schools.
        I also thank Representative Jared Polis for his work on the All
    Students Achieving through Reform Act of 2009, or the All-Stars Act. I
    was very pleased to join him as an original cosponsor.
        Throughout my career, both in Lansing and in Washington, I have
    been an ardent supporter of good public and private schools. I strongly
    believe that we should work to improve our federal education laws to
    incentivize more effective schools and options for parents and
    students.
        Charter schools provide Michigan families with an educational
    choice. Having a choice of quality schools is very important for
    students' education and for our communities. In fact, I have noticed
    that parents tend to be quite involved in their child's education when
    they choose to live near the school they want their child to attend.
        Developing good schools takes work. Officials in my state have
    spent considerable time and effort in ensuring that public charter
    schools are effective. According to the Center for Education Reform,
    Michigan's charter school laws rank the 6th strongest in the county. In
    my state, no other public schools are scrutinized like charters are.
    Charter authorizers (often state universities) have large staffs that
    monitor the schools and ensure compliance with lengthy, written
    performance contracts. Charters keep their contracts if they are
    academically and fiscally sound, and lose them if they are not. Even
    more importantly, charter schools are held accountable by parents who
    are there by choice and can ultimately ``vote with their feet'' by
    choosing another school if they are not satisfied.
        While there are approximately 240 public charter schools in
    Michigan, very few serve the high school grades. In 2008, a new public
    high school charter opened in Grand Rapids, and served 150 students
    with a waiting list within its first year of operation.
        The All-Stars Act would provide federal grant funds to replicate
    successful charter schools. It also would ensure high levels of charter
    school authorizer reporting and accountability.
        I look forward to hearing from our expert witnesses today, and hope
    that other members of this Committee will join me in supporting the
    All-Stars Act.
                                     ______

        [Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]