69–006 

110TH CONGRESS REPT. 110–782 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session Part 2 

PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS HOME RULE ACT OF 2008 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2008.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. WAXMAN, from the Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform, submitted the following 

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT 

[To accompany H.R. 6322] 

This supplemental report shows the minority views with respect 

to the bill (H.R. 6322), as reported, which was not included in part 

1 of the report submitted by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on July 28, 2008 (H. Rept. 110–782, pt. 1). 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

District of Columbia charter schools are governed by the DC 

School Reform Act of 1995 (SRA). The SRA, considered the strongest charter school law in the nation, guarantees charter school autonomy from District of Columbia Public Schools and from the DC 

government. 

H.R. 6322 amends the SRA by modifying the appointment process for the District of Columbia Public Charter School Board (DC 

PCSB) members to an unknown system to be determined by the 

DC City Council. 

In existence for 13 years, the DC PCSB is nationally recognized 

as an exemplary authorizer of high quality public charter schools, 

working efficiently to authorize first-rate public charter schools at 

the same time that DC public schools have been beset by leadership turnover and poor student performance. 

Currently, when there is a vacancy on the DC PCSB, the U.S. 

Secretary of Education compiles a list of potential replacements. In 

order for the Secretary to place candidates on the list, staffs from 

the U.S. Department of Education confer with colleagues to identify 

individuals who are knowledgeable about public education and 

charter schools. Candidates are also suggested to them from various national and local DC organizations. A vetting process is undertaken to screen candidates and narrow down the list. The list 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
2 

is then presented to the Mayor from which to choose board members. 

When this bill was introduced, the sponsor explained that she 

was motivated purely by ‘‘home rule’’ considerations and not by any 

concerns about the DC PCSB or the charter schools. In fact, she 

heaped praise on both, stating that: ‘‘My bill is not intended as a 

criticism of the [PCSB] or its work. D.C. residents have created 

huge demand. The exponential growth of charter schools and their 

long waiting lists are a solid indication of [their] success in meeting 

the needs of thousands of students.’’

Given the widespread support for public charter schools in the 

District of Columbia, many advocates are concerned about H.R. 

6322. These concerns stem from the fact that the implementation 

of an unknown appointment system may endanger objectivity in 

the chartering process. It’s perfectly conceivable that the Mayor, in 

his mission to reform DCPS, would like to see chartering curtailed. 

To that end, if he had sole discretion in appointing board members, 

he could appoint individuals who are philosophically opposed to 

charter schools and who would use their position to limit the number of new and expansion charter schools. 

In other jurisdictions, if a city or local school district is opposed 

to chartering, charter school founders may appeal to or apply directly to the state. Because of the District of Columbia’s unique status, power is concentrated in the Mayor who plays the role of Governor and controls the State Education Agency. By providing candidates for the PCSB, the U.S. Secretary of Education is like a 

proxy for the state. The Secretary serves a ‘‘checks and balance’’

function and helps to ensure that the appointed members are not 

opposed to chartering. 

The DC PCSB is a highly-regarded, highly-effective charter 

school authorizer that serves as a model for other states. There 

have been no accusations or findings of fraud, misappropriation of 

funds, or any type of malfeasance by staff or board members. To 

tamper with the series of checks and balance which have proven 

successful for the past 13 years could potentially impede the future 

success and independence of the DC PCSB. 

During the full committee markup of H.R. 6322, I offered a nonpartisan, compromise amendment to sunset the provisions of the 

bill after five years. Since the bill does not indicate what the new 

appointment process will be, this balanced amendment would have 

allowed Congress to evaluate the newly established process and 

would have done much to alleviate the concerns of those who worry 

that this bill would compromise the success of the DC PCSB and 

allow for the appointment of members hostile to charter schools. If 

concerns about the changes proved unfounded, than a permanent 

extension of the modifications would have been noncontroversial 

and allowed for certain unanimous passage through Congress. 

Given the partisan refusal to consider such a subtle amendment, 

I voiced my opposition to the bill’s passage and urge the majority 

to reconsider its rigid, uncompromising stance on this offer. 

VIRGINIA FOXX. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS