U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing 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

86–827 PDF 2016

RAISING THE BAR: THE ROLE OF 

CHARTER SCHOOLS IN K–12 

EDUCATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 12, 2014 

Serial No. 113–49 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Matt Salmon, Arizona 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Larry Bucshon, Indiana 

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Susan W. Brooks, Indiana 

Richard Hudson, North Carolina 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

George Miller, California, 

Senior Democratic Member 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Rush Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Mark Pocan, Wisconsin 

Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director 

Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on March 12, 2014 ............................................................................ 1 

Statement of Members: 

Kline, Hon. John, Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Miller, Hon. George, senior Democratic member, Committee on Education 

and the Workforce ......................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Graham Keegan, Lisa, Partner, Chair of the Board, National Association 

of Charter Schools Authorizers, Peoria, AZ ................................................ 17 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 19 

Linzey, David, Executive Director, Clayton Valley Charter High School, 

Concord, CA ................................................................................................... 25 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 27 

McGriff, Deborah, Chair of the Board, National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Milwaukee, WI .......................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9 

Rosskamm, Alan, Chief Executive Officer, Breakthrough Schools, Cleveland, OH ........................................................................................................ 40 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 42 

Whitehead-Bust, Alyssa, Chief of Innovation and Reform, Denver Public 

Schools, Denver, CO ..................................................................................... 31 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 33 

Additional Submissions: 

Chairman Kline, questions submitted for the record to: ...............................

Mrs. Keegan ............................................................................................... 76 

Mr. Linzey .................................................................................................. 83 

Dr. McGriff ................................................................................................. 87 

Mr. Rosskamm ........................................................................................... 93 

Ms. Whitehead-Bust .................................................................................. 97 

Holt, Hon. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

Jersey, questions submitted for the record to: ...........................................

Mrs. Keegan ............................................................................................... 76 

Mr. Linzey .................................................................................................. 83 

Dr. McGriff ................................................................................................. 87 

Mr. Rosskamm ........................................................................................... 93 

Ms. Whitehead-Bust .................................................................................. 97 

Hudson, Hon. Richard, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of North Carolina, questions submitted for the record to: .........................

Mr. Rosskamm ........................................................................................... 93 

Response to questions submitted: ...................................................................

Mrs. Keegan ............................................................................................... 77 

Mr. Linzey .................................................................................................. 84 

Dr. McGriff ................................................................................................. 88 

Mr. Rosskamm ........................................................................................... 94 

Ms. Whitehead-Bust .................................................................................. 98 

Messer, Hon. Luke, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana ..................................................................................................................

Prepared statement of ...................................................................................... 67 

Hinojosa, Hon. Rube ́n, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas ..............................................................................................................

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 46 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(1) 

RAISING THE BAR: THE ROLE OF CHARTER 

SCHOOLS IN K–12 EDUCATION 

Wednesday, March 12, 2014 

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:38 a.m., in Room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Kline [chairman 

of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Kline, Foxx, Roe, Thompson, Walberg, 

Salmon, Guthrie, DesJarlais, Rokita, Bucshon, Heck, Brooks, Hudson, Messer, Miller, Scott, Hinojosa, Tierney, Holt, Davis, Grijalva, 

Bishop, Fudge, Polis, and Pocan. 

Staff present: Janelle Belland, Coalitions and Members Services 

Coordinator; James Bergeron, Director of Education and Human 

Services Policy; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; Daniel Murner, Press 

Assistant; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Mandy Schaumburg, 

Senior Education Counsel; Dan Shorts, Legislative Assistant; Alex 

Sollberger, Communications Director; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy 

Clerk; Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director; Brad Thomas, Senior Education Policy Advisor; Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator; Kelly Broughan, Minority Education Policy Associate; Jacque Chevalier, Minority Education Policy Advisor; Jamie 

Fasteau, Minority Director of Education Policy; Scott Groginsky, 

Minority Education Policy Advisor; Brian Levin, Minority Deputy 

Press Secretary/New Media Coordinator; and Megan O’Reilly, Minority General Counsel. 

Chairman KLINE. A quorum being present, the committee will 

come to order. 

Well, good morning. Thank you to our witnesses for joining us 

today to discuss how successful charter schools can strengthen our 

nation’s education system. We appreciate your flexibility, given our 

need to reschedule the hearing due to last week’s snowstorm. And 

for once, it wasn’t just a single snowflake that shut this down, so 

we appreciate that very much. 

The charter school model began in 1991 in my home state of 

Minnesota. We passed legislation to create the nation’s first charter 

schools. In the years that have followed, more than 6,000 charter 

schools have opened in 42 states and the District of Columbia, 

serving almost 2.5 million children each year. 

As you know, charter schools are public schools that operate 

under a contract, or charter, negotiated with the local school board 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

2 

or other authorizer. The charter school agrees to meet certain student achievement goals and metrics, and in exchange, the institution will be exempt from certain state laws and regulations. This 

enhanced flexibility encourages charter schools to pioneer new programs and teaching methods that are meeting the unique needs 

and students and getting real results. 

In Indianapolis, for example, the Charles A. Tindley Accelerated 

School expects every student—no matter his or her background or 

circumstance—to have a college acceptance letter upon graduation. 

The school’s rigorous curriculum and laser focus on preparing students for higher education has helped more than 80 percent of its 

alumni earn a bachelor’s degree. 

Yes Prep Public Schools in Memphis and Houston also have an 

impressive record of success. The schools, which primarily serve 

low-income families, offer SAT prep courses and classes that help 

students learn the financial aid system and practice writing college 

application essays. And the hard work pays off: For 15 years in a 

row, every Yes Prep graduate has been accepted into college. 

For many children and their parents, charter schools are a beacon of hope for a better education and a better life. The schools are 

extraordinarily in demand. Wait lists for charter schools have 

grown steadily in recent years, reaching a new record of 920,000 

students in 2012. 

As we work to help more students access a quality education, we 

must support charter schools as a valuable alternative to failing 

public schools and work together to encourage their growth. Expanding choice and opportunity remains a key pillar in the committee’s education reform efforts. 

Last Congress, we advanced the Empowering Parents Through 

Quality Charter Schools Act. The legislation, which passed the 

House with bipartisan support, would reauthorize the charter 

school program and allow successful charter schools to be replicated across the country. 

Similar language to support charter schools was included in last 

year’s Student Success Act, our legislation to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and revamp the nation’s 

education system. However, the Student Success Act has been 

awaiting Senate consideration for more than 6 months. Each day 

without Senate action is another day thousands of students remain 

trapped in underperforming schools. 

We cannot make these families wait any longer for the education 

their children need and deserve. If the Senate refuses to bring education reform legislation up for a vote, then the House will explore 

opportunities to advance targeted legislation to encourage charter 

school growth. 

Recent news highlights the challenges the charter school model 

faces and underscores the importance of reauthorizing and 

strengthening the charter school program to help ensure these institutions can continue raising student achievement levels nationwide. 

I look forward to discussing with my colleagues and our excellent 

panel of witnesses ways the House Education and the Workforce 

Committee can help strengthen the charter school model and support the expansion and growth of these innovative institutions. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

3 

I now recognize my distinguished colleague, Mr. Miller, for his 

opening remarks. 

[The statement of Chairman Kline follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. John Kline, Chairman, Committee on 

Education and the Workforce 

The charter school model began in 1991 when my home state of Minnesota passed 

legislation to create the nation’s first charter schools. In the years that have followed, more than 6,000 charter schools have opened in 42 states and the District 

of Columbia, serving approximately 2.5 million children each year. 

As you know, charter schools are public schools that operate under a contract, or 

charter, negotiated with the local school board or other authorizer. The charter 

school agrees to meet certain student achievement goals and metrics, and in exchange, the institution will be exempt from certain state laws and regulations. This 

enhanced flexibility encourages charter schools to pioneer new programs and teaching methods that are meeting the unique needs of students and getting real results. 

In Indianapolis, for example, the Charles A. Tindley Accelerated School expects 

every student – no matter his or her background or circumstance – to have a college 

acceptance letter upon graduation. The school’s rigorous curriculum and laser-focus 

on preparing students for higher education has helped more than 80 percent of its 

alumni earn a bachelor’s degree. 

Yes Prep Public Schools in Memphis and Houston also have an impressive record 

of success. The schools, which primarily serve low-income families, offer SAT prep 

courses and classes that help students learn the financial aid system and practice 

writing college application essays. And the hard work pays off: for fifteen years in 

a row, every Yes Prep graduate has been accepted into college. 

For many children and their parents, charter schools are a beacon of hope for a 

better education – and a better life. The schools are extraordinarily in demand; wait 

lists for charter schools have grown steadily in recent years, reaching a new record 

of 920,000 students in 2012. 

As we work to help more students access a quality education, we must support 

charter schools as a valuable alternative to failing public schools, and work together 

to encourage their growth. Expanding choice and opportunity remains a key pillar 

in the committee’s education reform efforts. 

Last Congress, we advanced the Empowering Parents through Quality Charter 

Schools Act. The legislation, which passed the House with bipartisan support, would 

reauthorize the Charter School Program and allow successful charter school models 

to be replicated across the country. 

Similar language to support charter schools was included in last year’s Student 

Success Act, our legislation to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act and revamp the nation’s education system. However, theStudent Success Act 

has been awaiting Senate consideration for more than six months. Each day without 

Senate action is another day thousands of students remain trapped in underperforming schools. 

We cannot make these families wait any longer for the education their children 

need and deserve. If the Senate refuses to bring education reform legislation up for 

a vote, then the House will explore opportunities to advance targeted legislation to 

encourage charter school growth. 

Recent news highlights the challenges the charter school model faces, and underscores the importance of reauthorizing and strengthening the Charter School Program to help ensure these institutions can continue raising student achievement 

levels nationwide. 

I look forward to discussing with my colleagues and our excellent panel of witnesses ways the House Education and the Workforce Committee can help strengthen the charter school model and support the expansion and growth of these innovative institutions. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you for holding this hearing and agreeing to re-establish the hearing after it was originally canceled. 

I want to thank our distinguished panel for their participation in 

today’s hearing, and I look forward to your testimony. I am also 

eager to hear about the great work being done to improve our nation’s education system. I am looking forward to today’s discussion 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

4 

about how charter schools are benefiting students, parents and 

communities. 

I especially want to thank Mr. David Linzey, the executive director of Clayton Valley High School in Concord, California, who is 

with us today. The story of Clayton Valley’s transformation in just 

1 year is truly inspirational testament to the role charter schools 

can play in the K–12 system. 

I have seen this transformation firsthand, and let me tell you 

that Clayton Valley is a bright light in the 11th District. Students 

and parents are engaged. Teachers are supported. Student achievement is up, and the community is reaping the benefits. Mr. Linzey, 

thank you for traveling all this way today to tell the story of Clayton Valley’s success. 

This school year, more than 2.5 million of our nation’s students 

are attending nearly 6,400 public charter schools. In many ways, 

charter schools have been teaching us what is possible when it 

comes to educating kids, and their work helps break down many 

of the stereotypes that have all-too-often plagued kids who happen 

to be from the wrong ZIP Code. 

What started as a small movement just over 20 years ago has 

grown at breakneck speed. Now some school districts are enrolling 

significant percentages of their overall student population at public 

charter schools, but I worry that rapid growth will come at a cost 

of quality and accountability. Charters are given public dollars and 

flexibility in exchange for the promise to educate the students and, 

in many cases, turn around low-performing schools. However, when 

a charter school falls short of that promise, we owe it to the students, the families, and the teachers to hold the school responsible 

for improvement and close that school, if necessary, if they can’t 

meet those goals. 

Like other public schools, it is vital that charter schools are held 

to a high standard of accountability. Every school in every neighborhood needs to be serving students and parents, delivering on the 

promise of quality education, and all schools need to equitably 

serve all students. 

As I have said before, and I will say it again, no kid should be 

trapped in a failing school, charter or non-charter. We must treat 

all public schools as part of the solution. And yet all too often, we 

refer to charter schools as ‘‘those other schools’’ and treat these innovations in public education as if they were on a separate parallel 

track to school districts and non-charter public schools. Instead, we 

must embrace charter schools as part of our current education system and work to ensure that the autonomy and flexibility that 

charter schools receive is used to the benefit of all students. 

We have seen success borne out of meaningful collaboration with 

districts and communities in places like Denver, where charter 

schools aren’t often the side, but embraced as a driver of the whole 

district improvement. This kind of collaboration has fostered the 

transfer of best practices, many of which started as charter school 

innovations, but are now being applied in the public schools more 

broadly to enhance the services for underserved students, including 

students with disabilities. 

The district work in Denver is precisely what should be happening to benefit all kids, and we need to see more of this across 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

5 

the country. I look forward to hearing about Denver’s successes 

from another one of the witnesses today, and I believe that it is a 

moral imperative to do better by our students and families. Higher 

standards and better assessments will help, but we must look at 

the innovative reforms, like charter schools, to push the envelope 

and spur the system to change when they seem to be stuck. 

And I want to thank the chairman again for calling this hearing 

and, again, thank you to the witnesses, and we look forward to 

your testimony. 

[The statement of Mr. Miller follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, Senior Democratic Member, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I also want to thank our distinguished witness panel for their participation in today’s hearing. 

I am always eager to hear about the great work being done to improve our nation’s education system, and I am looking forward to today’s discussion about how 

charter schools are benefiting students, parents, and communities. 

I especially want to thank Mr. David Linzey, the executive director of Clayton 

Valley High School in Concord, California, who is with us today. 

The story of Clayton Valley’s transformation—in just one year—is a truly inspirational testament to the role charter schools can play within our K–12 system. 

I have seen this transformation first hand, and let me tell you that Clayton Valley 

is a bright light in the 11th district. Students and parents are engaged, teachers 

are supported, student achievement is up, and the community is reaping the benefits. 

Mr. Linzey, thank you for traveling here today to tell this story. 

This school year, more than 2.5 million of our nation’s students are attending 

nearly 6,400 public charter schools. 

In many ways, charter schools have been teaching us what IS possible when it 

comes to educating kids—and their work helps break down many of the stereotypes 

that all too often plague kids who happen to be from the wrong zip code. 

What started as a small movement just over 20 years ago has grown at breakneck speed. Now, some school districts are enrolling significant percentages of their 

overall student population at public charter schools. 

But I worry that rapid growth has come at the cost of quality and accountability. 

Charters are given public dollars and flexibility in exchange for a promise to educate students and, in many cases, turn around low-performing schools. 

However, when a charter school falls short of that promise, we owe it to the students, families, and teachers to hold the school responsible for improvement—and 

close it if necessary. 

Like other public schools, it’s vital that charter schools are held to a high standard of 

accountability. Every school in every neighborhood needs to be serving students 

and parents and delivering on the promise of quality education. And all schools need 

to equitably serve all students. 

I’ve said it before, and I will say it again: no kid should be trapped in a failing 

school—charter or noncharter. We must treat all public schools as part of the solution. 

Yet all too often we refer to charter schools as ‘‘those other schools’’ and treat this 

innovation in public education as if it were on a separate, parallel track to school 

districts and non-charter public schools. 

Instead, we must embrace charter schools as part of our current education system 

and work to ensure that the autonomy and flexibility that charter schools receive 

is used to benefit all students. 

We’ve seen success born out of meaningful collaboration with districts and communities in places like Denver, where charter schools aren’t off to the side, but embraced as a driver of whole-district improvement. 

This kind of collaboration has fostered the transfer of best practices, many of 

which started as charter school innovations, but are now being applied to public 

schools more broadly to enhance services for underserved students, including students with disabilities. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

6 

The district work in Denver is precisely what should be happening to benefit all 

kids, and we need to see more of this across the country. I look forward to hearing 

about Denver’s successes from another one of the witnesses here today. 

I believe there is a moral imperative to do better by our students and families. 

Higher standards and better assessments will help, but we must look to innovative 

reforms, like charter schools, to push the envelope and spur systems to change when 

they seem to be stuck. 

I want to thank the chairman for calling today’s hearing, and I look forward to 

the discussion. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. 

Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(c), all committee members will be 

permitted to submit written statements to be included in the permanent hearing record. And without objection, the hearing record 

will remain open for 14 days to allow statements, questions for the 

record, and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be submitted in the official hearing record. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce our very distinguished panel 

of witnesses. Dr. Deborah McGriff is the chair of the board for the 

National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. She also serves as a 

partner with New Schools Venture Fund. Previously, she has 

served as the first female superintendent of Detroit Public Schools. 

Mrs. Lisa Graham Keegan is the chair of the board for the National Association of Charter School Authorizers. She also serves as 

the founder and president of the Education and Breakthrough Network. Previously, she has served as Arizona’s superintendent of 

public instruction. 

And I think, Mr. Miller, did you want to introduce our— 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am honored 

to introduce Mr. David Linzey, the executive director of the Clayton 

Valley Charter High School in Concord, California. Mr. Linzey was 

unanimously appointed to serve as executive director of the charter 

high school’s governing board following the school’s 2012 conversion 

to a public charter school. Prior to leading Clayton Valley, he spent 

time as a teacher, principal, and a district superintendent, as well 

as chief academic officer for the Alliance of College-Ready Public 

Schools, a high-performing charter school network in Los Angeles. 

While with the alliance, he led the urban charter schools to achieve 

record-breaking college acceptance rates of more than 90 percent. 

His track record of student-centered and result-driven instruction 

has followed him to Clayton Valley, where just in 1 year since the 

charter conversion, the school has achieved the largest increase in 

student academic growth of any high school in the state. I want to 

personally thank Mr. Linzey for his leadership to Clayton Valley. 

Your vision, your hard work, your dedication, and your dedicated 

faculty have truly ushered in a new era for this high school and 

for its community of students, families and faculty. And I know the 

process of conversion was arduous at some point there, a little combative, but the results are indisputable. And I am pleased that you 

will be able to be with us today, David. Thank you so much for 

making the trip. 

Chairman KLINE. The pressure is on. You got that. Okay. 

[Laughter.] 

We also have Ms. Alyssa Whitehead-Bust. She serves as the chief 

of innovation and reform at Denver Public Schools. She is also an 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

7 

instructor in the University of Denver’s Education Leadership for 

Successful Schools Principal Preparation Program. That is more alliteration than I can handle there. 

Mr. Alan Rosskamm is the chief executive officer of Breakthrough Schools in Cleveland, Ohio. He also serves at the chair of 

the Parent Engagement Committee on the City of Cleveland’s 

Transformation Alliance. 

So, welcome to you all. Before I recognize each of you to provide 

your testimony, let me briefly explain, again—I know it has been 

pointed out—our lighting system. When you start your testimony, 

5 minutes will be allotted. You will have a green light in front of 

you. When there is a minute left, the yellow light will come on. And 

when you have reached the end of your 5 minutes, the red light 

will come on, and I would ask you to try to wrap up as expeditiously then as you can. 

After all of you have finished your testimony, then we will be recognized for 5 minutes each to ask questions. While I am loathe to 

gavel down the witnesses during their testimony, I am much less 

so with my colleagues. So we want to try to keep moving, give everybody have a chance to be involved in the discussion. 

I now would like to recognize Dr. McGriff for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DR. DEBORAH MCGRIFF, CHAIR OF THE 

BOARD, NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER 

SCHOOLS, MILWAUKEE, WI 

Ms. MCGRIFF. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf 

of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. I currently 

serve as the board chair of the National Alliance, and I am also a 

managing director at New Schools Venture Fund, a nonprofit organization that supports entrepreneurs who are transforming public 

education. 

I came to New Schools after a long career as an urban school 

teacher, district administrator, superintendent, and national charter schools leader. Throughout my career, I have been committed 

to choice, excellence and equity. Today I want to highlight the 

growth and impact of charter schools and the importance of the 

federal charter schools program to the growth and success of our 

nation’s public charter schools. 

Let’s start with growth and impact. This school year, there are 

more than 6,400 public charter schools enrolling 2.5 million students. This is amazing growth, as the movement began, as our 

chairman informed us, in 1991 with the passage of the first charter 

legislation in the state of Minnesota and with the opening of the 

first charter school the following year. 

Today, 42 states and the District of Columbia have now passed 

charter school laws, and in 135 communities, more than 10 percent 

of the students attend public charter schools. And in seven school 

districts, the charter school students exceed 30 percent of the public school population. 

As you know, Congress first created the charter schools program 

in 1994, and research shows that investment has paid off. Today, 

15 of 16 gold standard research studies conducted on public charter 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

8 

school student performance since 2010 have found that public charter schools are exceeding in their mission. 

Most important, charter schools are helping students who need 

it most. A 2013 study conducted by Stanford University’s Center 

for Research on Education Outcomes on public charter school performance looked at public charter school performance in 27 states 

and found that charter school students are outperforming their 

peers in reading in traditional public schools and they are closing 

the achievement gap among subgroups. 

Charter schools are seeing success in closing the achievement 

gap, while at the same time the percentage of public charter school 

students of color and from low-income families is much higher than 

the percent in traditional public schools. 

While public charter schools have been at the forefront of serving 

disadvantaged populations since the movement began, the National 

Alliance has worked to continuously improve these efforts. The National Alliance recently issued guidance to the charter school community on their legal obligations to serve English-language learners and provided a toolkit to guide those efforts. 

In addition, we at the alliance partnered with the newly formed 

National Center for Special Education in Charter Schools last October to issue a report on how states can provide support to charter 

schools and how charter authorizers in meeting their legal responsibilities to strengthen the recruitment and services for children 

with disabilities. 

Now to talk a little about the charter school program. The charter school program through the State Education Agency Grants 

Program provides the start-up capital needed to design a school, 

hire a leader, recruit students, staff, and make initial purchases of 

materials and equipment until regular state and local funding becomes available. 

Beginning in the fiscal year 2010, Congress continued its work, 

seeding quality charter school networks by enabling high-performing public charter schools to receive funding under the CSP 

grants for the replication and expansion of high-quality schools. 

The other major piece of the CSP program is support for facilities 

funding. Public charter schools most often devote scarce resources 

to securing space for their schools. The credit enhancement for 

charter schools program and the state’s facilities incentive grants 

help redress the fiscal imbalance and ensure that our public charter schools have the facilities they need. 

As the Congress continues to work on reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the number-one message 

that I want to leave with you today is that the CSP program is 

working and that both Congress and the administration should 

prioritize funding for the program to help us meet the needs and 

demands of parents and ensure funding equity for students who attend public charter schools. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on the 

growth and impact of charter schools in American public education. 

I am happy to answer any questions that you might have. 

[The statement of Dr. McGriff follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

9 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 1 here 86827.001
10 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 2 here 86827.002
11 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 3 here 86827.003
12 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 4 here 86827.004
13 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 5 here 86827.005
14 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 6 here 86827.006
15 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 7 here 86827.007
16 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 8 here 86827.008
17 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. 

Mrs. Keegan, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MRS. LISA GRAHAM KEEGAN, CHAIR OF THE 

BOARD, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHARTER SCHOOLS AUTHORIZERS, PEORIA, AZ 

Mrs. KEEGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Miller, and committee members. I appreciate being here today, and 

specifically to talk about charter school authorizers, the boards that 

put charter schools into business, and particularly those members 

of NACSA. I serve as the chairwoman of the National Alliance for 

Charter School—or the National Association—sorry, Deborah—for 

Charter School Authorizers, NACSA. We represent boards who are 

overseeing more than half of the nation’s public charter schools. 

I had the opportunity in Arizona to help write the charter school 

law in 1994, and I followed that as the state school superintendent 

into implementation, beginning in 1995. It is awfully nice to be 20 

years down the road and know a lot more about what the work of 

authorizing public charter schools is. 

And the reason that we know that is because, at the same time 

we started public charter schools in this country, we got a much 

better look at data. We started to collect student data. And I have 

to thank the members of this committee for their dedication to this 

data over time. 

Twenty years ago, we didn’t have this data when we started public charter schools. Today, we do. We also, though, when we started 

public charter schools, we initiated the first public schools created 

specifically to advance achievement. That was the goal. 

In charter schools, we see schools that are intentional. They are 

designed with a mission that is created by teachers, educators, who 

have a vision for a need that is seen and not met. It is a difference, 

it is a shift in the way we open a public school. It is an important 

shift, and we have seen thousands of leaders come to the fore to 

offer their mission. 

In addition, we have seen authorizing boards have to learn how 

to understand whether the people who sit in front of them are capable of delivering on that promise that they are so committed to. 

That has required a great deal of attention to the data that we 

have and the consistency of practice over time. 

At NACSA, I am particularly proud to be part of our effort called 

One Million Lives. The One Million Lives effort encourages charterauthorizing boards around the nation to use what we know about 

what excellence looks like and to only approve those applications, 

those dreams that have a good likelihood of resulting in a school 

that is worthy of the students in it. 

In addition, we ask our charter authorizers to take the difficult 

step of closing those schools, as Mr. Miller was discussing, that 

have not fulfilled their promise. It is a difficult task. It is an essential task. Over 5 years, we believe we will affect at least a million 

lives in this way for the better and have students in excellent 

schools. 

After the first year, I can tell you it looks like good progress. Last 

year, we saw 450 public charter schools open. That is not all of the 

public charter schools that open, but that is a number that we 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

18 

know were started by charter boards with the commitment to highquality standards. At the same time, 206 public charter schools 

closed last year. 

Now, that opening number is high, seems high, 450. It actually 

could be a lot higher. As the chairman has indicated, we have got 

close to a million students sitting on wait lists. The closure number 

is high. It is going to stay high for a few years. This country has 

opened a number of schools because we didn’t know. Those schools 

will have to close. That number will stay high for a few years. We 

suspect it will then come down—we hope it will—and that we will 

get in the business of only starting excellence. But we probably will 

continue to have some failure as innovation is essential in this 

field. 

So this is great progress in charter authorizing. It is also 

progress just generally in public education. What does a great 

school look like at opening? What does a great school look like in 

operation? When do you have to intervene as a board? 

Hopefully we are fast approaching the day when any public charter school will be an intentional school and one that is only opened 

because the mission of that school is well understood and the leadership that is going to be at the helm has a proven record of success before they even begin this new school. 

So we have learned a lot. We know a lot. But it is not yet time 

to codify this moment, because as our friend and mentor Geoff Canada reminds us, our work is not close to being done, and we have 

to push so hard on innovation that there will continue to be failures, new trials, new attempts. We have to allow that to happen. 

And the critical balance for charter authorizers and for any school 

board is to use the best of what we know today and to be open to 

what is possible tomorrow. 

At NACSA, we are very humble to be doing that work with leaders around the country. And I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman 

and Mr. Miller, for your ongoing support for charter authorizing at 

quality, and to thank the rest of the members for your work, and 

I am happy to answer any questions. 

[The statement of Mrs. Keegan follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

19 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 9 here 86827.009
20 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 10 here 86827.010
21 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 11 here 86827.011
22 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 12 here 86827.012
23 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 13 here 86827.013
24 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 14 here 86827.014
25 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. Mr. Linzey, you are recognized for 

5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID LINZEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

CLAYTON VALLEY CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL, CONCORD, CA 

(DEMOCRAT WITNESS) 

Mr. LINZEY. Chairman Kline, Congressman Miller, and members 

of the committee, thank you for inviting me here today to tell the 

transformative story of Clayton Valley Charter High School, a secondary school in Concord, California. 

Charter schools allow for the critical autonomy in decision-making, compared to the bureaucracy and red tape of the local districts. 

In traditional schools and districts, it often takes years to make important changes, with obstacles met almost at every turn. This is 

different for charter schools, as we have the capacity to make 

school-based decisions regarding curriculum, supports, interventions, and more, in a timely manner. 

A charter school is a speedboat in contrast to the Titanic of the 

district decision-making. Those in the trenches typically understand what changes need to occur to meet the needs of students as 

opposed to those who are farther removed. Charter schools allow 

opportunity for improvement, innovation, and site-based decisionmaking. 

Clayton Valley has undergone a remarkable transformation since 

converting to a charter school in July 2012. After years of frustration and neglect by the local district, the teachers’ turmoil reached 

a boiling point. This led to a vote by the teachers to convert the 

school from traditional to a charter school, using the state’s conversion law. 

The mission was clear: The teachers and the extended community of parents and community leaders banded together in support 

of making a better school. They wanted to bring the school out of 

its complacency of underachievement, decline in facilities, low staff 

morale, and student apathy. Parents had been disengaged for many 

years. Professional development was nearly absent, and the school 

had reached a low point in statewide student achievement, earning 

a ranking of 1 out of 10 on the similar schools scale. 

Despite opposition from district leadership, the charter school 

had tremendous support from Congressman George Miller and 

other key leaders who took a stand in support of our desire to become a charter school. The Contra Costa County Office of Education unanimously approved our charter petition. And then the 

work really began. 

I was appointed to be the executive director with a mission to 

galvanize the school into a common vision, leading the charter 

school from good to great. Then I hired a quality administrative 

team, and in just 6 weeks after I was hired, we opened the school 

with 1,900 students, the same students who attended the prior 

year. 

But the difference was immediate and astonishing. Much to the 

amazement of the staff, the parents, the students, the school was 

transformed almost overnight with the instructional framework of 

rigor, relevance, and relationships, as developed by Dr. Willard 

Daggett. I spent nearly a week with the teachers and administraCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

26 

tors discussing what quality instruction looked like, how application makes learning relevant, and how nurturing relationships between teachers and students lays a foundation where students 

want to learn and they want to perform academically. 

Professional development became the constant theme. And one of 

the founding charter teachers, current administrator Neil 

McChesney stated, ‘‘I received more professional development in 1 

year at the charter school than I had in 10 previous years.’’ 

Innovative intervention programs were implemented to support 

struggling students in the summers, after school, and even on Saturdays. There was an all-out focus on improving student achievement, and the teachers caught the vision. We embraced the very 

same strategies implemented by many other schools, charter 

schools alike, and these included powerful intervention programs to 

close the achievement gap, instructional guides, benchmark assessments, a failure-free zone policy where students had to do their 

work well or stay after school and do it over. The kids interpreted 

that as love. 

[Laughter.] 

We implemented innovative instructional approaches, extensive 

professional development. Parent involvement became a key theme 

with over 250 parents actively involved on a regular basis. Instructional software programs were utilized significantly. And then we 

implemented powerful counseling and guidance programs. 

While no single best practice is unique, the buy-in to these strategies by staff and the blend of all of these strategies has resulted 

in a whole new culture and a whole new campus. The desire by the 

teachers to do better and do more for students is remarkable. 

The autonomy is paying off quickly. Clayton Valley High School 

had the top academic achievement growth in California last year 

for large high schools. Their 62-point jump on the state’s API took 

them from a score of 774 to 836 in a single year, ranking us at a 

9 out of 10 on the statewide scale. The entire community of Clayton 

knows the significant transformation that has occurred. There is 

great community pride in our school. And CVCHS now has a waiting list of nearly 400 students for the fall of 2014. 

Without becoming a charter school, this transformation would 

have never occurred. The success of Clayton Valley and the tremendous gains has caused the local district and other schools to 

pay attention and borrow from our best practices. 

And as the executive director, my ultimate desire is to see academic success for all the students in my community, those at the 

charter and those at other schools, and it is our commitment to 

share those best practices with everyone who will listen. 

Again, this success would not have occurred without becoming a 

charter, and I want to thank you for allowing me to share that 

story, and I want to thank Congressman George Miller for his support. 

[The statement of Mr. Linzey follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

27 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 15 here 86827.015
28 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 16 here 86827.016
29 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 17 here 86827.017
30 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 18 here 86827.018
31 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. 

Ms. Whitehead-Bust, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MS, ALYSSA WHITEHEAD–BUST, CHIEF OF INNOVATION AND REFORM, DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS, DENVER, CO (DEMOCRAT WITNESS) 

Ms. WHITEHEAD-BUST. Thank you, Chairman Kline, Ranking 

Member Miller, members of the committee. I am honored to be 

here today representing Denver Public Schools and testifying on 

behalf of the important role that public charter schools play in our 

urban school system, a system which is dedicated to realize equity 

and achievement for all students. 

My name is Alyssa Whitehead-Bust. I serve as the chief of innovation and reform. And in that role, I oversee charter school authorization, quality control, and collaboration. Previously, for 15 

years, I helped launch and lead charter schools across the country. 

I am proud today to be part of a district that I think is setting 

the pace nationally, in part because of our intentional and strategic 

strategy around equity and collaboration between all public schools 

in our system, including our charters. 

Denver Public Schools is one of the fastest-growing urban districts in the nation, serving over 87,000 students from diverse 

backgrounds. Of the district’s 170 K–12 public schools, one in four 

are charter schools. Serving 13,000 students, Denver charter 

schools educate an equitable portion of the 72 percent of our students who qualify for the federal free and reduced lunch program, 

as well as of the 39 percent of our students who speak Spanish as 

their primary language. 

In Denver, we see the success of the charter sector as a necessary, but not sufficient component of a larger strategy that focuses on ensuring equity of access to high-quality public schools for 

all students. We see collaboration and the transfer of promising 

practices as an equally, if not more important component of our 

strategy. 

We know that by collaborating across all school types and thinking of our charter schools in part as the R&D lab that their original 

federal mandate suggests, we can more quickly fulfill our fundamental promise to graduate 100 percent of our students ready to 

persist in college and career. 

Our three equities, as we call them in Denver, set a solid foundation for the collaboration that is propelling our success. Denver 

public charter school leaders, as well as our school board, have mutually adopted a set of commitments to ensuring equity of accountability, equity of responsibility for serving all students, and equity 

of opportunity to access key resources, including financial resources 

and facilities. 

As an example, all Denver schools are publicly held to the same 

accountability framework. In addition, all of our new school and 

closure standards are applied to all schools, regardless of governance type. A full 79 percent of our charter schools are located in 

district-owned or operated facilities. This shared commitment to 

our three equities has fostered a fertile ground for the success of 

our charter schools themselves, as well as for the collaboration between all schools in our public system. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

32 

In Denver, charters do add quality seats to a system that needs 

them, filling both capacity needs and performance gaps across all 

areas of the city. While Denver has shown steady improvement in 

performance across all measures and all school types since 2005, 

charter schools have simultaneously and consistently outperformed 

other school models. 

Since 2010, our charter school enrollment has grown by 17 percent annually. Charter schools are in high demand in part because 

their autonomies give them the opportunity to try innovative and 

promising new practices. For example, charters in Denver have led 

the way in piloting strategies related to human capital, school culture, instructional delivery, and use of time and technology. 

Denver charters were amongst the city’s first public schools to 

expand learning time by extending both the day and the year. They 

have led the way in the use of data to drive instruction, as well 

as in establishing high-expectation learning cultures for both students and grownups. 

While these innovations are important unto themselves for the 

benefit of charter school students, they are particularly important 

in the context of collaboration. If isolated to the province of charter 

schools alone, such promising practices would only impact 15 percent of our students in Denver. But because of Denver’s approach 

to equity and collaboration, these promising practices are able to 

spread quickly to schools across governance type; 5 years ago, expanded learning was largely a charter school strategy. Today, dozens of non-charter schools have extended both their days and their 

years to ensure that they are offering more and better learning 

time for kids. 

Denver students and families need our charter sector to continue 

and to continue to adopt and share promising practices. Cities 

across the nation likewise are depending on a thriving and successful charter sector as part of our shared and intentional strategy to 

provoke dramatic gains in student achievement and dramatic reductions in achievement gaps. 

I encourage Congress to align its work to the reauthorization 

with important role of charter schools being at the forefront of your 

mind. I thank you for your time and look forward to answering any 

questions you may have. 

[The statement of Ms. Whitehead-Bust follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

33 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 19 here 86827.019
34 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 20 here 86827.020
35 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 21 here 86827.021
36 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 22 here 86827.022
37 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 23 here 86827.023
38 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 24 here 86827.024
39 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 25 here 86827.025
40 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. 

Mr. Rosskamm, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ALAN ROSSKAMM, CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, BREAKTHROUGH SCHOOLS, CLEVELAND, OH 

Mr. ROSSKAMM. Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and 

members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to discuss 

Breakthrough Schools and the transformative education efforts 

happening in Cleveland, Ohio. 

Breakthrough is a nonprofit charter management organization 

operating nine schools, with over 2,500 students, and growing to 

serve almost 7,000 schools by 2020. Our student population is 96 

percent minority, 84 percent low-income. For the second year in a 

row, Breakthrough is the highest-rated charter network in the 

state of Ohio. 

Our network had a unique start, growing out of a collaborative 

effort by three existing independent charter schools, each with a 

distinctive educational model. In 2009, they came together to improve their schools’ long-term financial sustainability and to enable 

growth so that they could serve more children. 

Our partnerships with families is key to our students’ success. 

Our teachers conduct summer home visits, and parent-teacher conferences approach 100 percent participation in many of our schools. 

Our Through College Program mentors students and their parents in the selection of high-quality college preparatory high 

schools that best fit their needs. Those efforts culminate in one of 

my proudest evenings of the year, where the 24 best high schools 

in Cleveland—independent schools, parochial, charter and district 

schools—all join us for a high school fair, with our parents and our 

children shopping together for the right school. 

At Breakthrough, we particularly value our relationship with the 

Cleveland Metropolitan School District. Breakthrough Schools is 

currently the only charter schools in the city sponsored by the district. Together, we work toward solutions that benefit children. 

Breakthrough’s principals and a group of district principals meet 

regularly for professional development and to share best practices. 

I feel I have a true partner in District CEO, Eric Gordon. 

We have also collaborated on facilities since 2011, when we purchased four closed buildings from the district and co-located one of 

our new schools inside an existing district high school. In both instances, these were firsts in Ohio. The co-location arose when the 

church lease we were counting on fell through just a few weeks before our new west side school was scheduled to open. Eric and the 

CMSD Board of Education showed tremendous courage and vision, 

allowing our elementary school to open in the basement of a district high school. 

Very quickly, we had CMSD high school students greeting our 

kindergartners at the door and walking them upstairs to breakfast 

each morning. When we outgrew that space, the district agreed to 

a lease of the empty school building next door for only $1 a year. 

There is a definite sense on both sides that we really are in this 

together. Our joint goal is to create more high-quality seats for 

children, regardless of who owns them. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

41 

Our city is best known for our unique collaborative approach to 

urban education reform. The greatest example of our partnership 

has been the work with Mayor Frank Jackson’s office, the greater 

Cleveland partnership, our Chamber of Commerce, the Cleveland 

Teachers Union, the Cleveland and Gund Foundations, the school 

district, and Breakthrough Schools to create and pass the Cleveland Plan: transformative bipartisan legislation that has enabled 

our city to pursue our shared vision of a portfolio school district, 

offering high-quality school options in every neighborhood. 

Part of the Cleveland Plan included the creation of the Transformation Alliance, a nonprofit organization charged with monitoring the quality of all Cleveland public schools, district and charter, to enable parents to make informed school choices for their 

children. Following the plan’s passage, we worked closely together 

again to pass a $15 mil operating levy, the first operating levy to 

pass in our city in 16 years. Cleveland is only the second city in 

the country, behind Denver, to allow charter schools to receive a 

small portion of the local tax levy dollars. 

As I think the committee can see, in Cleveland all of us have put 

traditional differences aside for the benefit of the city’s children. 

Breakthrough is an example of how educational entrepreneurs 

have created innovative schools that work and then proceeded to 

replicate to create quality seats for many more children. 

This phenomenon is taking place across the nation. Breakthrough is one of 24 high-performing charter management organizations that collectively operate more than 400 schools across 53 

communities and 23 states, serving 154,000 students. If we operated as a district, we would be the 15th-largest and the highestperforming urban district in the country. 

With your ongoing support, we plan collectively to open 370 new 

schools over the next 5 years and to serve an additional 200,000 

students. High-quality charters like those in the Breakthrough network and our peers across the country are proving every day that 

historically disadvantaged students can learn and excel. 

I thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this morning, 

and I look forward to your questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Rosskamm follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

42 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 26 here 86827.026
43 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 27 here 86827.027
44 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you very much. I thank all the witnesses, really, really great testimony. We have been doing some 

chattering up here, not out of disrespect for what you are saying, 

but out of interest in what you are saying. So really, really very, 

very good testimony. 

Mrs. Keegan, I think there is a lot of misunderstanding—or lack 

of understanding may be another way of putting it—of the role of 

authorizers. And we know that authorizers authorize the school to 

start, and they play a role in closing, but can you sort of lay out 

what the role is from inception to potentially end, just tell us how 

that works? 

Mrs. KEEGAN. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman and members, this role has 

evolved, as you know, but primarily charter school authorizers— 

and Arizona was the first state to have a state board specifically 

for charter schools, no appeals process, that is their job—now there 

are any number of different kinds of authorizers. 

Certainly, the local school district remains an authorizer in most 

of the 42 states. As one option, there are state boards for charter 

schools. There are other independent boards, often out of universities or other community service organizations. So those boards 

are charged with basically accepting the application from a group 

of teaching professionals that say, this is the school we would like 

to run. 

There are sometimes transformative moves, as Mr. Linzey was 

describing, where there is the opportunity to convert from traditional practice, traditional district school, to a new converted public 

charter school. So many, many different kinds of governance within 

even the charter sector itself. 

So authorizers take that first look, and they say yes or no, you 

can go into business or you may not, and that is not where it stops. 

Charter contracts generally now, 5 years at the start. At NACSA, 

we recommend that all be no more than 5 years at the start, and 

maybe if you have been a great school for decades, you can have 

a 15-year contract, but you have got to prove that you are great 

over time. 

That work of watching a school over time is what I think is most 

interesting right now. We have a lot of networks that we know 

have replicated themselves, the Breakthrough network notably 

among the best in the country. So we know what that looks like. 

And more than that, we know what Alan looks like. This has a lot 

to do with people. People are policy. People are practice. And so it 

is up to a governing board, a charter-authorizing board to recognize 

the expertise of the people behind that application at inception and 

then ongoing. 

And then it is their job when the schools fail to shut that school 

down. That is never easy. It is never easy for kids. Oftentimes, you 

can shut that public charter school down knowing that kids will 

not have better options. Hopefully we are coming up with better 

ways to maybe transfer those charter schools over to networks like 

Breakthrough that are exceptional, let a better team come in and 

take that over so that students don’t lose in that equation. But for 

sure, charter authorizing boards that are overseeing schools that 

cannot make good on their promise have got to shut those down. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

45 

Chairman KLINE. And you can do that fairly quickly? How long 

does it take you to shut a school down? 

Mrs. KEEGAN. Mr. Chairman and members, it has been taking 

way too long. I would say part of that was lack of data in the first 

place. Now we know pretty quickly. We know within the first 2 

years, quite frankly, the school is going to make it or it isn’t. 

I have to say, for the first 10 years, though, as these schools got 

up and running, there is a bunch of them I am glad we didn’t shut 

down, particularly community schools that were struggling to get 

it right, and many have now. I am glad we let them go. But it 

doesn’t take long now. 

And the practice—organizations like NACSA that can help charter authorizers understand the laws and regulations they need to 

have in place to be able to quickly close these schools down or bring 

in better operators, that knowledge is coming, I think is here now, 

and just more boards have to adopt it. 

Chairman KLINE. What do you have to do legally to shut one 

down? I hate to be focusing on the shutting down part here. We 

are excited about charter schools and them starting, but clearly, 

this is a power, this is a practice, this is a possibility that really 

doesn’t exist in the traditional public schools. So how do you do 

that? 

Mrs. KEEGAN. Mr. Chairman and members, the charter school 

has a contract that says they will do a certain number of things, 

and charter authorizing boards now, fortunately, have set most of 

the good ones at an even higher standard than the state has. Once 

that is violated, the school is noticed under whatever legal notice 

process exists in the state, and so it is a legal notification process. 

It probably takes at least 18 months, and so that is why you 

have to get right on it, because this is a right, as you have indicated. A contract is a right. It is a business right. But charter authorizers can act very quickly to give that first notice that the charter has not been met as soon as you see, you know, reporting, academic reporting or financial reporting. Often these are financial 

problems, and they need to act on that as quickly as possible, probably no shorter timeframe than 18 months, but it shouldn’t be 

much longer than 2 years. 

Chairman KLINE. Okay. Thank you very much. My time has expired. 

Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. McGriff referred to 

the National Center on Special Education Charter Schools. I would 

like to submit for the record their testimony and ask unanimous 

consent to be made part of the record. 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

46 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 32 here 86827.032
47 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 33 here 86827.033
48 

Chairman KLINE. Without objection. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. 

Mr. Linzey, given the nature of the attendance area of Clayton 

Valley charter high school, I wonder if you might describe what you 

saw at Clayton Valley prior to its conversion to a charter school. 

Mr. LINZEY. I was able to visit the school in the several months 

prior to us becoming a conversion school. And the school, quite honestly, looked apathetic. The students looked disinterested. It was 

obvious there was apathy amongst the kids. 

In speaking with staff members, there was incredibly low staff 

morale, frustration, and so the campus wasn’t very clean. The facilities did not look like they were kept up very well. It is about 

a 60-year-old facility, and it looked like it. It had aged every bit of 

that and then some. 

And so there was some hope by the leaders of the conversion, 

there was a hope by a lot of staff. The parents were incredibly excited about the newness, the new opportunity to be a part of this 

school again. In talking with many of the parents, they just weren’t 

a part of the school for the past number of years. 

Mr. MILLER. Can you describe the demographics? 

Mr. LINZEY. The demographics—it is a suburban school. It is not 

like the traditional—or what you might see in a normal, very 

urban school. It is predominantly Caucasian, and then the next 

subgroup would be Hispanic population, with smaller groups of 

Asian and African-American students. 

There is probably about a 20 percent free and reduced lunch student body there, and then there is a segment of English learners. 

I would like to report that every single subgroup grew significantly 

on our state tests, and most successful were the groups that were 

the farthest behind. And we took great pride in that. 

Mr. MILLER. You have 20 percent free and reduced. You also 

have some very high-income. 

Mr. LINZEY. We do. It is a suburban school, and the city of Clayton is a more affluent area. So that is kind of rare to see a conversion charter school in a suburban setting like that, but just shows 

you the level of frustration that was in existence. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. 

Ms. Whitehead-Bust, the question of facilities, can you describe 

the process by which facilities are able to be made available for 

charters in Denver? 

Ms. WHITEHEAD-BUST. We have an internal policy that allows us 

to think about equitable placement of our charter schools, thinking 

about our vision of ensuring that all students have access to a 

high-quality school. We look first and foremost at the track record 

of the school and its ability to serve students in a particular neighborhood. 

We then also look at the ability for a school, if they are going 

to be co-located, sharing a campus, to collaborate with the school 

that is also on that same campus. So are there opportunities to 

share professional learning, programming, school culture, those 

kinds of things? So charter schools have the opportunity to present 

their case to us, that they would like to be located in a districtowned or operated facility, and then there is a placement process 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

49 

that looks at a variety of transparently publicized criteria, and 

then we make our decisions from there. 

Mr. MILLER. – they are co-located, between the charter and the 

traditional school? 

Ms. WHITEHEAD-BUST. You know, I would follow up on the statement that we are getting better and better at this work overall. I 

think if you looked at our first campus-sharing campuses, you 

would see that we have gotten considerably more intentional about 

placement decisions today to ensure the kind of collaboration that 

we really want. 

So I will give you a very specific example. We have a campus in 

the middle of urban Denver that co-locates Cole Elementary School. 

It is an innovation school and the Denver School of Science and 

Technology middle and high school. And they have adopted a 

shared mascot, shared language for student discipline, shared systems and structures to have adult learning transfer from one side 

of the campus to the other side of the campus. That is working incredibly well. It is working that well in part because we learned 

from some of our early experiences. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. Dr. Roe, you are recognized. 

Mr. ROE. I thank the chairman for recognizing. And kudos for all 

of you all for what you are doing. I mean, it is just amazing what 

I am hearing. And, Mr. Linzey, job well done. I wanted to start out 

by saying that. 

I have heard a common theme, and I would—I have got a lot of 

questions I am going to submit to you all in writing, but one is, 

why do we need—why do we need charter schools? I mean, and I 

think the reason is, is to narrow the achievement gap, I believe is 

the reason that we are having that, and I want to know how you 

define a failing school. 

I hate to go back to what the chairman was saying, but I have 

been a former mayor. Fortunately, I just got to build schools, but 

closing one is your worst nightmare. So I know just from a standpoint of a community and how they are attached to the school, that 

is a very difficult thing to do, so I would like to have you all talk 

about that. 

Do you use a common curriculum? Are you all in the charter 

school system—because we know—ought to know now what works. 

And if you know in 2 years what failure is, already you have defined that, then why don’t we just—when we start one of these— 

do what works? 

And what I have heard you all say is, we have to have great 

teachers that are constantly motivated, and the question is, how do 

you not hire underperforming teachers? That is also very hard. 

Great leadership in the principal’s office I think is another thing 

I have heard, the length of the day. Nobody wants to go to school 

longer. Mr. Linzey, I can assure you, if you had challenged me with 

studying and getting my work done or staying after school, I know 

what I am going to do. It is good leverage. 

[Laughter.] 

And then summer programs, no one talked about that, about how 

you narrow that. So I will stop. I want to hear what you have got 

to say about all of those things. And anybody can answer that. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

50 

Mrs. KEEGAN. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Roe, I am happy to 

start this, and there is a great deal of expertise here, so I will be 

brief. 

But I would simply say, the curriculum that each of these schools 

choose is going to be very different. It is mind-blowing, actually, 

what is out there, some schools using a hybrid techniques, part digital learning, part teachers, some using very traditional methodology that I would recognize as my grade school eons ago. 

And yet it is about a decision to be excellent in excellent schools. 

I would even say that at this point what we know is it is not so 

much what a charter school does, it is what a school does, and that 

looks the same whether it is district, charter, magnet, all public 

schools, governance aside, once you get in there, it is about instruction and the decision to be at, A, using the time and the intention 

and the expertise to get there, and you can do it in a lot of different 

ways. What you see as an authorizer, however, is it is either being 

done according to the contract with data that shows you it is or it 

isn’t. So I will let my colleagues speak to that. 

Mr. LINZEY. Yes, thank you. And thanks again for the questions, 

outstanding questions. I would like to just speak to the issue of 

curriculum for a second. Most charter schools, all charter schools 

that I am aware of teach to the standards of their state curriculum, 

so the common curriculum is the same curriculum as the state you 

are in. And now we are moving to a national curriculum, the common core curriculum, and so that is a big shift for all schools in 

the nation, really. 

But within the curriculum, there is instruction. And so instructional practices vary greatly from school to school, from classroom 

to classroom in a school, and so it is up to the leadership within 

the school to ensure there is high standards, quality instruction, 

monitoring, professional development, and with budget cuts in 

California, I know, and probably every other state, a lot of the 

funding for professional development has been cut and days for 

professional development in the summer has been cut. 

But as a charter school, you have that autonomy to spend your 

dollars where you think it needs to be spent, so we still, with the 

same dollars that other schools got, charter or non-charter, we 

were able to fund teachers the past 2 summers for extensive professional development and then to pay teachers to work on Saturdays 

to work with intervention programs, using research-based practices. 

I like to tell our teachers, not every strategy is the same. There 

are research-based practices. Dr. Robert Marzano has his nine that 

are the highly effective strategies. That became our bible for, let’s 

get these nine done well, and then we can move on to some others. 

Mr. ROE. My time is about expired. Let me get two quick questions. Where are charters located? Are they urban? I live in a rural 

area. Where are they located? And, two, how do you answer the 

question about charters taking money away from underfunded public schools and selecting students? I think that is an argument you 

hear all the time, so I don’t know whether you have got time to 

answer, but in writing I would like to hear those. 

Mr. ROSSKAMM. I would be happy to comment on the funding. 

There is no question that when students leave a school, a certain 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

51 

number of dollars leave with them. Whether they are leaving the 

city altogether because parents feel they can get a better education 

in a suburban district, whether they are moving to a parochial or 

independent school, or whether they are moving to a charter 

school. 

On the other side of that equation, at least in our city, and in 

our state of Ohio, the charter schools that are accepting those children are only getting—are getting less than two-thirds of the funding that the district school is spending per child, and the district 

facilities are funded through bonds and through state facilities, 

whereas the charter schools are paying rent on those facilities. 

So we start with a substantial disadvantage, and yet we have to 

do the same job and hope to do that job better. 

Mr. ROE. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. Mr. Hinojosa, you are recognized. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you, Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller. 

I strongly believe that all schools, including charter schools, 

should offer a high-quality education and serve all students equitably. I have experience as the local school board of trustees member. I have experience as the member of the Texas State Board of 

Education for 10 years and a trustee for a community college before 

I came to Congress. 

So much of what we are discussing today is of great interest to 

me, because I believe that charter schools, especially those that are 

high-quality charter schools, are definitely contributing to our education progress in schools throughout the United States. 

But I have a problem with seeing that in my state of Texas, 

where we have over 6 million students in our K–12 programs, that 

the legislature cut $6 billion about 3 or 4 years ago, and we had 

to raise the average of students in each classroom from what was 

average to have 22 up to 25, 28. 

I looked at the statistics that several of you have given, like the 

state of Ohio, with a number of students and campuses, and it 

equals 280 students per campus. I looked at the state of Texas on 

our public charter schools, the number of campuses we have, and 

it averages 323 per campus. 

So wanting to make all of our schools operate as well as the exemplary and high-quality charter schools, tell me how that can be 

done. All the public schools my children have gone to have had 

close to 1,000 students in that campus, high schools. My last, fifth 

child is in high school with 2,000 students. 

So it just seems like we are comparing two different types of programs for so many students in the average public school in the 

country versus our best charter schools. So let me ask Ms. Whitehead-Bust, what is your answer to changing things in our public 

schools? 

Ms. WHITEHEAD-BUST. One of the things that we are finding in 

Denver is incredibly helpful is pairing teachers and school leaders 

between different school types to share their promising practices. 

You are referencing perhaps small schools as being one strategy. 

We see many strategies that are really important for student success, data-driven instruction, high-quality student culture, highCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

52 

quality adult learning. We heard from our colleagues that operate 

schools some of the strategies that they have put in place. 

And so in Denver what we have tried to do is pair our leaders 

and educators from across different schools to share some of those 

promising practices. So as an example, STRIVE is one of our highest performing charter networks in Denver. They operate largely a 

series of middle schools. They host, as an example, extraordinarily 

high-quality data analysis sessions with their teachers that allow 

their teachers to turn on a dime and shift their instruction the very 

next morning to make sure that they are accelerating and 

recuperating learning for all students. They open those sessions to 

all teachers in the district so that they can come and observe and 

use those very same practices when they go back to their own campuses the next day. 

And so we see slowly, step by step, these practices sharing across 

campuses. The charters are also learning from direct-managed 

schools. It is not a one-way sharing, but we very intentionally pair 

educators together. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I 

have time for one more question, this one to Dr. McGriff. Can you 

share your views on the proliferation of virtual charter schools and, 

in particular, how these schools equitably serving—how are these 

schools equitably serving and meeting the needs of students with 

disabilities and English-language learners? 

Ms. MCGRIFF. At the National Alliance, we are supportive of all 

models of charter schools, because we know that kids learn in lots 

of different ways and parents have different expectations for students. I cannot speak very specifically about the stats on special 

education or language learners in virtual schools, but in charters 

overall, there is not a disadvantage for special education students 

or English-language learners. And the research is pointing out that 

the students are equally represented when compared to traditional 

schools. 

I do also want to go back and say, we can’t judge any school on 

a single factor. And what we tried to talk about today are the constellation of factors that make for a great school. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. My time has run out. I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Walberg? 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the panel 

for being here. It is really invigoration to hear students, parents, 

and teachers talked about more than just simply past history of 

educational status quo. Students needs primarily are what we 

ought to be concerned with. 

And, Dr. McGriff, it is good to see you. I remember as a member 

of the Michigan House Education Committee watching your all-tooshort tenure in Detroit Public Schools. 

Ms. MCGRIFF. Nice to see you. 

Mr. WALBERG. As you were given all sorts of accolades from people who really cared about the product of the Detroit Public School 

system being given a chance to ultimately be educated to meet the 

needs in the real world and have the same opportunity that other 

school students had in other districts. I just wonder, had some of 

your innovative new course charting proposals in that great school 

system and a great city, that hopefully will return to its greatness, 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

53 

if that had been allowed to bring about its full results, what difference there might be in Detroit this very day. 

Ms. MCGRIFF. Thank you. 

Mr. WALBERG. We hope that as a result of the work that you and 

other panel members are doing that we see that change. 

Let me ask you, Dr. McGriff, you discussed in your testimony the 

efforts and the intentions of charter schools to create a collaboration between public charter schools and traditional public schools 

in order to share best practices to educate students, again, the 

needs of students versus the status quo desires of the educational 

establishment. What role do charter schools play in that collaboration? And more specifically, if you could expand on how they benefit traditional public schools? 

Ms. MCGRIFF. I think the panelists have addressed that. I happen to be on the board of the Denver School of Science and Technology, and the example that was given for Cole Middle School as 

a way of sharing, but generally, when there are district charter collaborations, we have pointed out achievement first, for example, 

provides principal training for all the principals in the city, because 

their principal training program is considered to be that thoughtful. 

I know that DSST has put into place a really strong human capital initiative. They are also engaged in 100Kin10, which is an effort to raise 100,000 STEM teachers in urban areas, and those 

ideas through PD are shared. 

We also—for here in D.C., for example, there are a number of 

initiatives that are implemented in the charter school network that 

the district public schools will also implement. And I will give you 

an example. We talked about benchmarking today, and there is a 

benchmarking system that lots of charters use called achievement 

network, is used in the charter schools in D.C., but it is also used 

in the public schools. 

So there isn’t this division. And sometimes schools have the same 

theme. People ask, why charter schools? Because parents want different kinds of schools. They want performing arts schools. They 

want science schools. They want Montessori schools. And often you 

may have a charter school with that theme and a public school 

with that—a traditional public school with the same theme, so they 

collaborate across instructional strategies and building programs. 

I can’t think of a single idea where a charter—an innovative 

charter school and an innovative traditional public school could not 

collaborate if they chose to. 

Mr. WALBERG. And that is the key, isn’t it? The— 

Ms. MCGRIFF. It is. And another—I will give you another example. I happen to live in Milwaukee, and we have an initiative called 

Schools That Can Milwaukee. It is a collaborative of the highestperforming traditional public schools, highest-performing charter 

schools, and highest-performing publicly funded private schools. All 

you have to be to be a part of this network is to be high-performing. And the goal of the network is to bring 20,000 additional 

high-performing seats to the city by 2010. 

Mr. WALBERG. What a great concept. What a great concept. In 

my remaining moments, Mr. Rosskamm, when looking at reform, 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

54 

are there any federal obstacles that we here can assist you in, in 

helping removing to make your success even better? 

Mr. ROSSKAMM. In Ohio, many of our obstacles are state obstacles. What we do desperately need—and I guess the legislation is 

before you—is funding to replicate what works. Innovation is an 

important part of the charter movement, and we need to continue 

to fund innovation, but once we have proven something, there is no 

greater return on investment than providing funds to replicate 

what is working. And we absolutely, desperately need your help to 

be able to continue to do that. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. Mr. Bishop? 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you very 

much to the panel for your testimony and also for your work on behalf of our nation’s students. 

I feel sort of like a voice in the wilderness here, but I just need 

to put this out there. The Elementary and Secondary Ed Act reauthorization that this committee passed freezes funding for Title I 

and IDEA for the next 5 fiscal years at the fiscal 2013 post-sequester levels. It also—that same bill—suggests that the federal government should be providing financial support for the planning, program, design, and initial implementation of charter schools, and to 

expand the number of high-quality charter schools available to students across the nation. I am quoting from the bill. 

So my question is, we are going to freeze—if this committee’s bill 

were to ever take on the force of law, we would freeze funding at 

admittedly inadequate levels, post-sequester levels, for fiscal year 

2013, so we would carry forward a level of funding that is inadequate, and yet we would be funding at an increased level charter 

schools. 

And so my question to you is—and I will ask each of you to respond briefly—is that a good public policy choice? Should we really 

be reducing our support for the traditional programs of Title I and 

IDEA, and doing so, so as to increase—or as a potential consequence, increase the support for charter schools? Is that the right 

public policy choice for the federal government to make? 

And so I just put that out there as a question. 

Mr. LINZEY. My reaction to that is, nobody that I know of in education wants to cut funding for Title I and IDEA. So I don’t think 

that is a good policy to cut funding for special ed students and for 

Title I students, but my question to you back would be, where do 

you get your biggest bang for your buck, if you have limited dollars? 

Mr. BISHOP. And that—see, that is where I am heading, also. 

Mr. LINZEY. Right. 

Mr. BISHOP. And we may be coming to a different conclusion, but 

95 percent of our students are educated in public schools. And so 

I guess I would argue that is where you get the biggest bang for 

the buck. But you may have a dissenting opinion. 

Mr. LINZEY. Yes. I think the data that I have seen, which is national data, CREDO Institute, is showing that charter schools are 

making significantly more gain than their traditional public 

schools. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

55 

Mr. BISHOP. I am going to push back on that a little bit. That 

data, that CREDO data, if you really look at it, what it really 

shows is that there are either no differences or infinitesimally 

small differences in performance of public school students versus 

charter school students. And so I guess—again, and this is not to 

knock charter schools. This is to question why it is we seem to be 

moving headlong in a support of charter schools at the expense of 

traditional public schools. 

Mr. ROSSKAMM. If I could, I would like to respectfully suggest 

that maybe that is the wrong question. In Cleveland— 

Mr. BISHOP. I am a member of Congress. Of course I have got 

to ask the wrong question— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ROSSKAMM. But your privilege, of course. In Cleveland, our 

mayor has said that—to use his words, he is over that question. 

What he is interested in is supporting high-quality schools, both 

district and charter, and seeing a reduction in poor schools—and either turning around or doing something about the underperforming 

schools. 

And I want you to know, from a charter perspective, we need, 

desperately need those dollars for special-needs children. We take 

that obligation and that responsibility equally seriously and need 

those funds. 

Mr. BISHOP. I guess where my concern is—and maybe—and I am 

maybe doing too much talking and not letting you answer, but I 

think you can probably make an argument that more money 

doesn’t necessarily equate with quality. But I am not sure you can 

make an argument that if you continuously drain resources out of 

the public school system that is not going to result in diminished 

quality. 

And that is my concern. In New York, the way charter schools 

are funded is by basically taxing the sending district the tuition 

that they would normally receive from the student going to that 

school to the charter school, so they are getting hit both ways. And 

so my challenge is or my question is, is this really where we should 

be going? Or shouldn’t we be increasing the size of the pie? If we 

are that committed to charter schools, shouldn’t we be increasing 

the size of the pie, instead of slicing it differently? 

Mr. ROSSKAMM. Mr. Chairman, could I respond to that, as well? 

Mr. BISHOP. Have I taken too long? 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. BISHOP. It is a great question, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KLINE. A fine question. We will probably have a 

chance to pick that up later. 

And just for the record, in the Student Success Act, Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act, which not only passed the committee, but passed the floor, we did not cut a dime from IDEA. We 

didn’t address special education. And I think I would agree with 

the gentleman that we as an institution, we as a country are not 

doing our job in increasing that money for special ed, but we did 

not cut it, just for the record. 

Dr. Bucshon, you are recognized. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would 

like to say, you know, we could use your help in getting the United 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

56 

States Senate to bring their version of the bill to the U.S. Senate 

floor, maybe pass that, and then we can get to conference and work 

out our differences. 

With that said, Dr. McGriff, my question surrounds the number 

of hours kids spend in school and what charter schools across the 

country are doing with that. I mean, I think many of us know— 

and I have four kids, and I am not an educator, but I study the 

subject a lot, that other countries around the world, their children 

spend more time in the classroom than ours do, dramatically more 

time in the classroom. 

And I think we also know that lower socioeconomic class students, when they have long summer breaks, regress at a faster rate 

than students from higher socioeconomic populations, primarily, I 

think, probably from because of the lack of parental engagement 

and other factors. They are just trying to get by day-to-day. They 

don’t have time to worry about these issues. 

So can you comment on maybe what charter schools—the trend 

in charter schools is across the country and hours in the classroom 

and maybe length of breaks that charter schools are doing? There 

are some schools that are going to year-round and how that 

might—if there is data out there that shows that that—in America, 

that works, and how that could spill over into—or the rest of our 

educational system, which admittedly, I think, in my view, is stuck 

in the past. 

Ms. MCGRIFF. I think when we think about more time, we have 

to look at, more time doing what? And we also have to look at, 

what is the current developmental stage of the school? So if you 

look at charter schools that are launching and they are getting a 

new set of kids, they are going to have a very different approach 

to how to use time, where the extra time should be, than if you are 

looking at a CMO that has been in operation for 15 years and they 

have now developed a culture. 

So let’s talk first about the really early-stage school. Generally, 

they will not open without having the kids who are coming to them 

the first year come to some type of summer school. They think that 

culture-building before they get in the room in September is an important thing to do. 

When you diagnose kids, and they are three and four grades behind, and they are in ninth grade, you are not going to catch them 

up unless you are doing after-school programs that you have to 

come if you don’t do your homework. They are building in these 

kids the resiliency and the sense of responsibility and good use of 

time. 

And you are absolutely right. Low-income children regress every 

summer. So if you don’t have—the programs are innovative. They 

are not just the traditional summer school programs. They have 

these kids going to college campuses, spending experiences on college to get them to know, college is for you, and you can be successful. Or they are sending them to STEM camp. 

So I think when people say more time and an extended day, they 

don’t really look deeply into the innovations that—and it is not just 

charter schools. The great quality traditional public schools do exactly the same thing with time. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

57 

I think what we are learning from the CMOs in our portfolio, 

that over time, as the—especially if the CMO has a feeder pattern 

K–12, they are now getting kids that are not so far behind, they 

are beginning to cut back the number of hours to be more consistent with what kids need. But that takes years of having kids 

that you have had since kindergarten now coming into your middle 

schools and your high schools. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Yes. Ms. Whitehead-Bust, do you have any comments on that, about what you are doing in Denver as it relates 

to hours in the classroom and innovation as far as—as was pointed 

out by Dr. McGriff, effectively using the extra hours, if you are 

going to have the students there, how you can most effectively use 

that time? 

Ms. WHITEHEAD-BUST. I would reiterate that it is not just more 

time, but more and better time. And so we are using the opportunity for expanded time to think about acceleration and recuperation of students simultaneously so that you are ensuring that your 

students who are struggling to meet your grade level proficiency 

standards have the opportunity to catch up, but simultaneously 

making sure we are not thinking about our standards as a ceiling. 

They are intended to be a floor. 

And so we have some students who need acceleration so that 

they can exceed those minimum standards, in addition to really focusing on the non-cognitive success factors that we know are essential for students to persist through college and careers, so working 

on opportunities to set goals to build a sense of values within a student culture that we know transcends critical thinking, collaboration skills, et cetera. We ask that our schools come forward with 

plans. In most cases, they are adding about 100 hours to their 

school year through a combination of extended day and extended 

year. They work in small cohorts, again, so they are sharing best 

ideas and best promising practices across schools. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. 

Mr. Polis? 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the 

chair and the ranking member for bringing before us such excellent 

witnesses on an important topic. This hearing is really helping to 

showcase the impact of public charter schools as a tool within public education. 

I think there has been a great discussion of charter schools as 

a strategy to boost academic achievement for all students. And we 

are particularly thrilled that the committee has called this hearing. 

As the founder of two innovative public charter schools myself, one 

currently chartered through Denver Public Schools, the Academy of 

Urban Learning, the other, the New America School in New Mexico 

and Colorado, with five campuses, I have really been in the practice of founding and, in the case of New America School, running 

a superintendent, a charter school, I really got to see firsthand how 

we were able to use the flexibility afforded to us by our authorizer 

to meet the learning needs of the kids that came in our door. 

Public charter schools across the country are demonstrating time 

and time again that where a child lives, their ZIP Code, their economic background, their ethnicity need not determine his or her 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

58 

educational outcomes. In my home state of Colorado, public charter 

schools are developing innovative strategies, attracting great talent 

to the room, districts like DPS, who we heard from Ms. WhiteheadBust, charter schools are serving as laboratories of innovation and 

are very much part of the district, in terms of sharing best practices. 

One of the frustrations that I have sometimes is when people at 

the district level or elsewhere say, oh, it is us versus them. Well, 

Denver Public Schools is an excellent example of a district that 

very much views charters as part of us, as it should be. It is part 

of the public education system. 

And I am not for traditional schools, charter schools, neighborhood schools, magnet schools, per se, but I am for great schools. 

And no matter what the governance model, we want to make sure 

that there is a great public school for kids to go to. And sometimes 

we get caught up in these arguments of, oh, it should be—they 

should run it or this adult should run it or it should be part of this 

or part of that. 

That is not what makes an impact for the kids. What makes an 

impact for the kids are great teachers in the classroom, with great 

school leadership, enough learning time, and we have proven time 

and time again that works, and that is good news for public education in our country. And we have had many great schools testifying, including some who testified here today, like Breakthrough 

Schools and Clayton Valley, truly great schools. 

Now, the charter school program is a critical way that the federal 

government partners with state and public charter schools. Many, 

if not most charter schools might not exist today if it were not for 

this charter school program. Before any of the state or local funding even kicks in, charter schools have expenses. And it is absolutely critical that the charter school program allow charter schools 

and innovative schools to get off the ground. 

In addition, charter school program rewards states with strong 

authorizing practices, provides incentives to ensure that laws allow 

public charter schools to thrive, seed the growth and expansion of 

excellent charter schools that defy expectations for kids every year. 

My All-STAR Act, which I introduced with Representative Petri 

and many other members of this committee, would improve this 

program by investing in high-quality charter schools, reward states 

with laws that afford additional freedoms for charter schools, ensure that authorizers don’t hand out charters like candy, but have 

a thoughtful process around making sure that the applicants can 

deliver on the model. 

I want to get to my questions. My first is for Ms. WhiteheadBust. Of course, thrilled to highlight the outstanding work that 

Denver Public Schools near my district has done to improve outcomes for our most at-risk kids. I want to talk about how being a 

portfolio district that values different governance models—she 

mentioned innovation schools. That is a concept in Colorado. It is 

kind of like a charter school-lite concept, where it is part of the district, it is kind of a hybrid between the two. Some states have 

those, as well. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

59 

How has being a portfolio district given you additional tools as 

a district to expand and replicate high-quality schools to ensure 

that more kids have access to high-quality schools? 

Ms. WHITEHEAD-BUST. I appreciate the question and the focus on 

equity and access for all kids across our system. I think as a portfolio district, we have had the opportunity to define publicly and 

transparently the criteria that we use both to open new schools, to 

support all schools within our portfolio, regardless of governance 

type, and to have an assertive stance on closing schools who aren’t 

getting it done for kids, in particular our kids who most need highquality options. 

Mr. POLIS. And let me feed you one more question with the limited time. Talk a little bit about what Denver has done to ensure 

that all schools are serving with special needs, and especially severe special-needs students. 

Ms. WHITEHEAD-BUST. In Denver, our charters have signed up to 

help serve a proportional percentage both of our English-language 

learners and of our special education students. We have led the nation recently in opening center-based programs within our charter 

schools—we have about 10 today—to serve our most severe needs, 

special ed students, and in addition to stepping up to provide equity of access for those students, they are helping us innovate. How 

do we discover more inclusive models as an example? How do we 

ensure that expectations and culture are appropriate for all students? So we are learning together in that endeavor. 

Mr. POLIS. So many more questions, Mr. Chair, but I will yield 

back. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Rokita? 

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the chairman. I thank the witnesses. It has 

been great testimony. 

I want to start off by associating with Congressman Polis’ remarks. I think he is exactly correct. I mean, who here shouldn’t be 

for great schools, no matter what the governance structure? And 

this idea that money is being siphoned off or compartmentalized or 

whatever I think goes to—I think it was the mayor of Cleveland’s 

point. I am over that question. I am over it. 

I mean, if the product of competition is the movement of some 

funds, you know, I think that, in fact, can be a very healthy thing, 

ultimately. Competition is a good thing. It is good in every other 

part of our lives. And to the extent there is competition for the effective and efficient teaching of our greatest asset, which is our 

children, so be it. 

In that vein, I would simply, again, state for the record it is kind 

of been an ongoing debate around here, but the fact is that, since 

1970, at the federal level, we have increased spending on education 

300 percent. And my data shows that there has been little or no 

commensurate improvement, however you want to measure improvement. It certainly doesn’t match the kind of money we are 

spending, so I don’t think we have a money problem. 

And if any of you differ with that, I have heard some comments 

about, oh, we definitely need the money. And I understand that. 

But if any of you believe—and I would like this for the record that 

pushing more money at this without change in governance strucCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

60 

ture, without doing something differently, like you all are doing, 

you know, I would like to know that opinion. Anybody? Let the 

record reflect, no one is taking that bait. 

Mr. LINZEY. Well, no— 

Mr. ROKITA. Except for Mr. Linzey. 

Mr. LINZEY. Does there need to be more funding? My answer is, 

for innovative schools, yes, there needs to be more funding, because 

we are limited by the amount of dollars given to charter schools— 

Mr. ROKITA. But from a macro standpoint. 

Mr. LINZEY. From a macro standpoint— 

Mr. ROKITA. Should we increase another 50 percent? We have already increased funding 300 percent since 1970. 

Mr. LINZEY. Right. And I would say, for those good organizations, 

those innovative and effective organizations, if we can get whatever 

monies there are to them so they can do the work that is proving 

to be successful, we need to do that. Whether you want to say more 

dollars or—I don’t know how to take dollars away from current 

groups. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you, Mr. Linzey. How do you measure success? 

Mr. LINZEY. How do I measure success? 

Mr. ROKITA. Yes, in your last statement. 

Mr. LINZEY. Ultimately, it is going to be jobs. And then what is 

your key to getting kids to jobs? It is going to be literacy skills, college readiness, and what we are moving towards in the common 

core standards. That is—but the ultimate proof of success is, are 

they employable? 

Mr. ROKITA. Has the charter school concept been around long 

enough to prove success under how you define it, Mrs. Keegan? 

Mrs. KEEGAN. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, absolutely, it has 

been around long enough to prove success. And I think there has 

never been a more exciting time to go into public education because 

of this, because educators are at the helm of this, because they are 

bringing their own answers. You have got two great examples here 

of the school leadership that is out there now, and it is providing 

a different path. 

So I think in the future, funding ought to be about individual 

students and follow them to schools that work in the public sector. 

We ought to be very concerned that there is enough money that is 

equitably accessed by students, regardless of which school they 

choose, if it is an exceptional school, which is what I think Mr. 

Linzey has been saying, that we should be about the businesses of 

accelerating what is demonstrably excellent out there, because we 

got a lot of demand sitting in the country for it. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you. Anyone else want to add to that? 

Ms. MCGRIFF. Yes, I just wanted—may I jump in, just quickly? 

Mr. ROKITA. Dr. McGriff, yep. 

Ms. MCGRIFF. One, the pot of money is what exists, but there 

needs to be equitable funding for charter schools. Charter schools 

currently operate on about 80 percent of what traditional public 

schools get. It is very seldom that we get equal funding, so that is 

an issue. 

The second issue for me, I need to have young people who are 

not going to live in poverty. So it is not to me just a job. I know 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

61 

if I—and the CMOs that I work with in charter schools are wanting kids to graduate, go to college, because they reduce by 50 percent the likelihood that their own families will live in poverty. So 

we have a very high success bar for the schools that we work with. 

Mr. ROKITA. Excellent. I don’t think you are saying anything different than Mr. Linzey, in my—from what I heard. 

Mr. ROSSKAMM. Could I also comment— 

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Rosskamm, for the record. 

Mr. ROSSKAMM.—and try and make this real in some sense in my 

limited experience? The wonderful teachers and educators that I 

have the privilege of working with are getting spectacular results, 

the best results in our state. We have not just closed the achievement gap; we have reversed the achievement gap. And yet our 

teachers are receiving less than—are working at a 20 percent discount from teachers in the district. 

We have things, needs for our children, extracurriculars, cocurriculars, programming we would love to do that we just cannot 

afford the additional staff because of inequitable funding that it 

would take to do those things. So the dollars are very real. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, my time is expired, and 

I didn’t even get to ask the questions that I intended to ask. Thank 

you. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. 

Mr. Grijalva? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just follow up, Mr. Rosskamm, on the point that you just 

made, the 80/20 and the 20 percent disparity that occurs in public 

charter schools relative to public. With equitable funding, as you 

mentioned, would come—do you see with that equitable funding 

also coming the idea of public charter schools providing transportation, extracurricular, and you mentioned pay, salary issues? Is 

that what you mean by that? 

Mr. ROSSKAMM. Among the many things we would like to do for 

our children, yes. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Well, my example in Arizona, which progressive 

as it is, does have some issues, the extra money being asked by the 

public charter schools for enhancement of the 80/20 split comes out 

of the budget of the is currently the regular public school system. 

Do you see that as an equitable way to do that? 

Mr. ROSSKAMM. Forgive me, but I actually see that as a false 

issue, at least in Ohio. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Well, it is for— 

Mr. ROSSKAMM. Let me try and explain my— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Okay, I have got another question. 

Mr. ROSSKAMM.—explain my response. The state— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I have only got 5 minutes, so make it quick. 

Mr. ROSSKAMM. Yes, the accounting—and the money comes directly to us. But the way it is accounted for in our state, the district feels like they are losing money because on paper it is transferred through the district. It never goes there. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Okay. For public charters, the financial situation 

for that public charter, is that proprietary information to the charter or to Breakthrough? Or is that public information that schools 

are required to provide? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

62 

Mr. ROSSKAMM. We are public schools, and we are transparent 

and share that information. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mrs. Keegan, it is good to see you again. 

Mrs. KEEGAN. Good to see you, Congressman. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me ask about authorizing, because our state 

has, what, about 605 charters, seven authorizers. California has 

1,067, maybe more, 314 authorizers. And the question of closure 

came up and failing public charter schools, how you deal with that 

very tough situation. Based on that, do you think there has to be 

a cap on charter schools, number one? And number two, authorizers having this other governance, are they also—they have responsibility for evaluation, oversight? And shouldn’t there be an enhanced requirement for that authorizing process? Because it is 

kind of subjective between states right now, as I see it. 

Mrs. KEEGAN. Mr. Chairman— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And seven having that full responsibility for 605 

charters begs the question. 

Mrs. KEEGAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Grijalva, I appreciate the question. I think there does need to be a higher standard. And the state board for charter schools, which is the primary 

authorizer, as you know, in Arizona, does have a much higher 

standard and is a star member of NACSA, thank God, or I wouldn’t 

be able to talk about them. 

So we are looking—as you know, Congressman, we are looking 

at about 40 schools in Arizona that probably will be closed because 

of those high standards, that is right. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Quick follow up. Do you think, as we go through 

this—you know, the public charters and charters in general are 

founded on the premise of public—traditional public schools are 

failing. I mean, that is the genesis of the movement. Having said 

that, so that you believe there is a federal role in ensuring that 

states employ quality standards for charter schools or not? 

Mrs. KEEGAN. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Grijalva, just for the 

record, that was never my intention, and I helped write the law in 

1994, not the premise that traditional public schools were failing, 

but the premise that all public schools were not good enough and 

that we needed more educators to be able to come directly into our 

education market and provide what they knew. 

So to that extent, I think we have done a great job in Arizona 

and nationwide, so I don’t think we are at a point where we know 

exactly what needs to happen in terms of governance for all public 

schools, and I certainly think public charter schools are helping us 

learn. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Okay, thank you. Ms. McGriff, my question is, 

who is accountable for at-risk students that you mentioned in your 

statement, kids with disabilities, English learners, in a charter 

school? Is it that individual school? Is it the authorizing body? Is 

it both? Who has the ultimate accountability if there is going to 

be—or is there a federal oversight role in terms of what the benchmarks for that accountability should be? 

Ms. MCGRIFF. The first—the contract is with the authorizer, so 

the authorizer does establish the expectations for serving all kids 

and will terminate the contract if that is not done. There are requirements that you must meet from the federal government, and 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

63 

there are also requirements from the state. And so the oversight 

is— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. It doesn’t contradict the notion of flexibility? 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Thompson? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you to all the 

witnesses here on this panel. 

I want to start with Mr. Rosskamm. In your testimony, you mentioned that a Web site for families is being unveiled today. Family 

engagement and education I think is incredibly important. Last 

July, I introduced the Family Engagement Education Act, and I 

wanted to just check and see, can you tell us a little more about 

that and how it is going to help or propose that it will help improve 

parent engagement in all schools? 

Mr. ROSSKAMM. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. We 

are kind of excited in Cleveland that just 2 weeks ago, we launched 

a new Web site as part of our Transformation Alliance, which is 

a public-private nonprofit body appointed by the mayor that includes district leaders, charter leaders, teachers, parents, nonprofits, and corporate representatives. 

And collectively, we are developing a process in Cleveland to 

evaluate the performance of all public schools in Cleveland, district 

and charter, and we are also receiving input from parents and families, and then we have put all that information, including state 

ratings, statements from the schools themselves, on a Web site that 

is available to parents so that parents can make better choices for 

their kids. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Very good. Dr. McGriff, I mean, I happen to believe that one of the most important aspects of charter schools are 

that they are laboratories of innovation within education. But I am 

not real sure how well we are doing of closing that loop of—because 

I hear all kinds of great things that occur in charter schools, but 

I think there are some bureaucracies at times, some lack of flexibility, of really fulfilling what a charter school should be for, of determining these innovations and rolling it out so that every child 

benefits from it. 

So in your testimony, though, you stated that one of the original 

tenets of the charter school movement was to ensure the transfer 

of knowledge and best practices between traditional public schools 

and the public charter schools. Can you tell us, how is the National 

Alliance assisting those efforts? 

Ms. MCGRIFF. Well, the National—thank you—the National Alliance has been involved in a number of issues. One, first of all, is 

collecting best practices and the research and sharing it. We also 

sponsor the National Charter School Conference that has over 

4,000 people who attend. You can get information on best practices 

from our Web site. There is a daily e-mail that goes out about charter innovation that—if you don’t like daily, you can get weekly updates. There are toolkits. We are partnering with other organizations. 

We work very closely with each of the state associations to make 

sure that the work that our individual state associations are doing, 

we know about that nationally and we spread that. We work with 

states to write strong charter legislation or to improve weak charCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

64 

ter legislation, because without good legislation, you are not going 

to be able to share and innovate. 

The work that you have done with the federal law also allows the 

most innovative of our CMOs to replicate. And there are a number 

of cities that are just begging these CMOs to come and to start 

their work. 

But I want to just say quickly that in replicating, each of those 

CMOs are innovating. Replication to them does not mean that I am 

going to take the first school that I opened and open it 20 times 

exactly the same way. I am constantly improving the model so that 

I can accelerate performance for students. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Very good. In the time I have left, I was just curious, for each of the panelists, or as far as we go until the light 

changes, anyways, we have that red light, you know, in your experiences, you know, what is the one innovation you have seen that 

has worked remarkably in a charter school, because you have had 

the flexibility to do that with, that you think if—that we should 

provide the flexibility to push it out into traditional public schools? 

Mrs. KEEGAN. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, I would say, teachers in charge. I think the best schools we see, it is teachers hiring 

teachers. The English Department is hiring the English Department. The profession owns that school, and I think it is a fabulous 

reminder that schooling is always about teaching. 

Mr. LINZEY. I would like to just say more time, more quality time 

on task in the school day itself, in addition, outside the traditional 

school day. The charter schools I have worked with really make an 

emphasis on not wasting time, engaging kids in high-quality instruction, and then for the kids that are most needy, extending 

that instruction oftentimes to as many as 240 days a year to close 

that achievement gap, using Saturdays, summers, and things like 

that. Those are key processes. And a third thing I would say is 

using research-based technology programs for intervention so kids 

can access 24/7 to learn. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Okay. Thank you, Chairman. 

Chairman KLINE. Mr. Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I tend to agree with my colleague from New York about charter 

schools. If you are having more money going into education, to siphon it off to charter schools and not to try to beef up the public 

schools, where 95 percent of the students are going to be going, I 

think diminishes the opportunities for those virtually all who are 

in public schools. 

I also agree with the—my understanding of the research is that 

there is essentially no difference between what happens in charter 

schools and public schools. 

You hear all the successes in charter schools. You don’t hear the 

failures, where you tried. So I guess my question is, when you have 

eliminated all the regulations and give all the flexibility, what happens to the students that get relegated to a charter school that 

didn’t work? 

Ms. MCGRIFF. I can answer. I can give you an example here in 

Washington, D.C. A few months ago, the chartering authority identified a school to—we call it re-chartering. And instead of—because 

the school had over almost 700 kids in the building, there wasn’t 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

65 

a notion of just close the school and put the kids on the street or, 

you know, fine the school, if you can. They contacted a high-performing CMO in the city, KIPP DC, and the board of that school 

engaged KIPP DC in the management of the school. 

Mr. SCOTT. If you don’t have the performance standards and the 

other regulations, how do you determine that it is not performing? 

Mrs. KEEGAN. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, public charter 

schools have performance standards. They are bound to the same 

state academic program and assessment programs that every public school is, and— 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, what regulations do—are there not—if there is 

flexibility, what regulations do they not have to comply with? 

Mrs. KEEGAN. Well, they don’t have to comply with the traditional hiring and firing practices. They don’t comply with—that is 

probably the biggest one, that they are outside of those contracts. 

I would say, in the analysis of what money goes to public schools, 

public charter schools are public schools. When Title I is cut, it is 

cut for public charter schools, so all kids in public schools share 

that money. 

Mr. SCOTT. If you give the flexibility in hiring, you will have 

some much better decisions at some schools and some much worse 

decisions at others. People hire fraternity brothers and neighbors 

and relatives and all that. If you don’t have the standards, what 

happens when you end up—what happens when you don’t have the 

good performance? 

Mrs. KEEGAN. Go ahead. 

Ms. WHITEHEAD-BUST. You are highlighting the importance of 

quality authorizing. So in Denver, as an example, we have closed 

20 schools across governance types in the past 5 years. Ten of those 

20 were charter schools, because they were not meeting our accountability expectations. While we are able to grant flexibilities on 

the inputs, hiring practices, curriculum, we grant no flexibility on 

the outcomes. We believe that all students deserve access to the 

highest-quality outcomes and hold all schools, regardless of governance types, to that same accountability metrics. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now you are talking about public charter schools, 

where the governance is public governing boards. Is that right? 

Ms. WHITEHEAD-BUST. All of our Colorado charter schools are 

public charter schools. 

Mr. SCOTT. And how do you get on the governing board of the 

governing body of the charter schools? 

Ms. WHITEHEAD-BUST. So the boards are self-created. Although 

they are reviewed for quality, it is one of the most important components of our quality framework, because we grant contracts to 

boards, not to school leaders. And so part of our robust rubric and 

metrics that we look at to grant charter schools looks deeply at the 

composition of that charter school, their policies, their practices, 

and their expertise. 

Mr. SCOTT. Are they subject to the same regulations as a traditional public school? 

Ms. WHITEHEAD-BUST. They are an independent not-for-profit 

governing board, quite different than the publicly elected governing 

board that oversees Denver public school writ large. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

66 

Mr. SCOTT. Do they get to impact the composition of the student 

body directly or indirectly? Do they have the opportunity to expel, 

for example? 

Ms. WHITEHEAD-BUST. I am proud that in Denver we have led 

the nation having a unified school choice system that is actually 

managed by the same central team for 100 percent of our schools, 

charter or otherwise. So all entry and exit decisions related to students are made using the same criteria by a department that operates under the Denver public school system. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, yes, but does the school decide who is expelled 

and who isn’t expelled? 

Ms. WHITEHEAD-BUST. They do not. 

Mr. SCOTT. Do they have any direct or indirect impact on admissions by location or transportation? 

Ms. WHITEHEAD-BUST. They do not, because that system is managed as a unified school choice system. So I as a mom of three 

daughters get to fill out a lottery form. I happen to have one 

daughter in a charter school, one in an innovation school, and one 

in a direct-managed school. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Messer? 

Mr. MESSER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the panelists for being here on this very important issue. 

Mr. Chairman, I have a letter that I would like to submit for the 

record. It is from the Center for Education Reform dealing on this 

topic. 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

67 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 28 here 86827.028
68 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 29 here 86827.029
69 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 30 here 86827.030
70 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 31 here 86827.031
71 

Chairman KLINE. Without objection. 

Mr. MESSER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just couldn’t be more excited about the topic that we are here 

to discuss today in charter schools. It gets at the fundamental 

promise of America that every kid in America should have a chance 

to go to a great school. 

And the truth is, in America, we fall woefully short of that standard. Lots of kids go to great public schools, but no kid in America 

ought to have to go to a school where they won’t have a chance to 

succeed. And we need to work in public policy at finding the right 

school for every child. 

I am a former president and CEO of an organization called 

School Choice Indiana. I believe strongly in charter schools. I believe in traditional public school choice. I believe in private school 

choice. I believe in home-schooling options for some kids, as well. 

You know, we have—the second paragraph of the Declaration of 

Independence promises all of us a God-given right to pursue happiness. And in modern America, that means we are all promised by 

God an opportunity to succeed. And that promise isn’t real in today’s America unless you have a quality education. 

And that is the stakes of what we are here to talk about today. 

It is interesting to hear on the other side of the aisle a sort of litany of the myths of these—of public schools and—I mean, of charter schools, and so I would like to go through a few of them with 

you. In the interest of time, I am just going to answer the first one, 

but I hope you can all nod in agreement. 

I noticed that Dr. McGriff’s organization is called the Public 

Charter School Organizations, and all charter schools in America 

are public schools, so many of the false choices that are presented 

here are a question between, what are we going to do with public 

schools and charter schools? Well, the reality is, they are all public 

schools, and they are schools that are serving kids. 

Secondly, there is a lot of conversations about, well, charter 

schools aren’t accountable, the question of, you know, well, what 

happens when they don’t work? In my experience—and I would ask 

anyone on the panel to comment on this—charter schools are far 

more accountable than public schools. I mean, there are far more 

incidences of charter schools that—some work incredibly, others 

have had less success. When they don’t work, they close. 

There are school after school after school across the country in 

public schools, when if they are not meeting the standards for a 

child, frankly, the answer is to throw more money there and keep 

sending kids. Could anybody comment on the difference in accountability between charter schools and traditional public schools? 

Mrs. KEEGAN. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, thank you for the 

question. There is a direct accountability, in that if parents and 

students don’t want to go to that school, they don’t exist. So we 

haven’t even spoken about that accountability. Of course they have 

the same requirements to meet standards, and they usually set 

them higher, and the governing boards or the authorizing boards 

that put them in business are setting those standards higher. But 

those schools have to convince families that they are worthy of 

their kids. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

72 

So nobody is assigned to a public charter school. Somebody has 

to make a choice. That is direct accountability. 

Mr. MESSER. And virtually every state I am aware of that has 

a robust charter school program, far more charter schools are 

closed than any public schools. Fair? Is that right? 

Ms. WHITEHEAD-BUST. In Denver, we negotiate performancebased contracts with all of our charter schools, and we have found 

in the past 2 years, when four charter schools have been closed, 

three of those four have surrendered their charter because they understand that they are not meeting the quality bar that we have 

mutually negotiated. 

Mr. MESSER. Yes. In line with that, I mean, another topic you 

hear is, well, you know, the charter schools are performing well, 

but they are creaming the best kids out of the system. In my experience, in talking to education reformers who are inspired to be 

educators that change lives, frankly, they seek the toughest kids in 

the toughest populations. And my understanding is that the statistics are that charter schools, by and large, are serving a much more 

disadvantaged population than the public schools generally. 

Could a couple of you comment on that? 

Ms. MCGRIFF. I would agree. And I tried to point out the demographics and the diversity of the student population in my opening 

remarks, so I won’t repeat them, but the research clearly shows 

that the demographics in charter schools are much more diverse 

and poorer than traditional schools. 

Mrs. KEEGAN. Mr. Chairman, I would just add to that, that I 

would invite people who say that to walk the hot streets of Phoenix 

in the summer when the schools in the urban core who are going 

in to try to rescue these kids are trying to convince families that 

they will be worthy of their kids, day after day after day, trying 

to make that argument, because this is something families haven’t 

seen before, and they have to convince families. 

There is nothing akin to creaming kids that goes on in these 

quality schools that are going into the urban core where the kids 

are least served. 

Mr. MESSER. Oh, I went from yellow to red. 

Chairman KLINE. You did, sir. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mrs. Davis? 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all of 

for being here. And I am from San Diego. I have seen some extraordinary examples of charter schools, but I also question the extent 

to which they really influence other schools in the area. We know 

that, as you have said, I mean, a lot of charter schools close, so, 

you know, if you start saying, well, how many—you know, what is 

the percentage of ones that continue to go on and be exceptional 

and what are the percentage that actually, you know, don’t do so 

well or are just not able to make the grade? 

The good thing is that perhaps they are no longer there, but the 

reality is that they leave a lot of students who might need a whole 

lot of remedial help during that period as they make a transition 

into what is often another public school in their community. 

So what are we doing to address those issues? Have we found a 

good way—do you think that actually there is any responsibility on 

the charter school or those who put it together or the school district 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

73 

to do the kind of intense remediation that is required to help those 

students who actually weren’t getting what they should have during that period of time? 

Mr. ROSSKAMM. So, you know, we are extraordinarily proud, particularly some of our middle schools that take kids in the fifth or 

sixth grade that are far behind. We sweat blood, sweat and tears 

to get those kids caught up through incredibly dedicated teachers 

and getting the kids to buy into their own futures and their own 

learning. 

But I will admit that in Ohio, notwithstanding the influence of 

the national authorizers and the progress we are making, we don’t 

have the authorizing standards we should have. That is changing, 

and that is a good thing, and it needs to continue to change. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Is there a federal role in that? Should there be? 

Mr. ROSSKAMM. That, as I understand it, is more of a state role 

and a role in terms of the responsibility and the oversight of the 

authorizers themselves. Our good authorizers maintain very high 

standards, and there is new legislation, state legislation, that will 

prevent authorizers with a bad track record from opening more 

schools. 

Mrs. DAVIS. And in many cases, those are local school boards, 

correct, in a number of cases who make some of the final decisions 

about the charter schools? 

Mr. ROSSKAMM. In Ohio, typically, they are not. 

Mrs. DAVIS. They are not. Oh, okay. 

Mr. ROSSKAMM. Typically not. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay. Yes, all right. Thank you. Mr. Rosskamm, I 

know in your testimony earlier you talked about the fact that your 

schools were able to get federal funding to replicate and to be a design, really, for the community, and that took some federal funding. 

Could you have moved with that replication without that federal 

funding? How critical was that? 

Mr. ROSSKAMM. It was absolutely critical and continues to be 

critical. There is a tremendous amount—you know, I already explained that our initial per student funding is less, and in the planning year and in the first couple years of a new school, we lose serious dollars. And if we did not have that support, we just simply 

could not move forward. 

And we lose those dollars in part because we are so concerned 

about getting the culture right that we start small, and then when 

we get it right, we continue to build. But as basic economics says, 

if you have fewer children in the seats, you are generating less revenue. Until we fill the building, we are not covering our overhead. 

Mrs. DAVIS. So would you suggest that there is some federal role 

there in terms of looking to those programs that actually—like 

Breakthrough, that actually have a really strong track record, but 

couldn’t on their own replicate their programs? 

Mr. ROSSKAMM. I think the best return on investment that we 

can have is to take something that is working. After all the innovation, we have some winners, we have some losers, but once we have 

identified things that are working, it is a fabulous return on investment to replicate what is working. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. Ms. McGriff, could you just speak to the 

idea of the Department of Education is updating guidance to allow 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

74 

charter schools to use weighted lotteries? And is that something 

that you think is a good idea? How would you see that play out? 

Because we do know that certainly charters go out and do a lot of 

recruiting, but on the other hand, there are some particular needs 

that charters have to develop a diverse body of students, and that 

is important. 

Ms. MCGRIFF. This is one of my favorite questions and favorite 

things, and I am so happy that the federal government has decided 

that schools like Denver School of Science and Technology, that 

was designed to have a student body that is socially and racially 

integrated and a focus on STEM and college can now get funds 

from the federal government to support their work. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Would you all agree with that? 

Ms. WHITEHEAD-BUST. We second that appreciation. 

[Laughter.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. The rest of you, as well? Do you use that? And, I 

mean, is it an issue for you? 

Mr. ROSSKAMM. Absolutely. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay. Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentlelady’s time has expired. All time has 

expired. 

I want to thank the witnesses and yield some time to Mr. Scott 

for any closing remarks that he may have. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, only to say that a lot of this can be done on 

the traditional setting. When you have a lottery and decide who 

can get a good education and who can’t, that raises additional questions. Of course, if you get in one of these good schools, you are a 

lot better off. But overall, what we have found is that charter 

schools have not done better. A lot of them fail. And students are 

stuck in those, as well as some of the good schools. 

So we need to improve all the schools, and I think that sentiment 

has been made. I think we need to do everything we can to get 

there. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KLINE. As is so often the case, the gentleman who is 

sitting here and I disagree on some things, but on one thing I think 

we all agree, that we need to do better for our kids on the whole. 

And I happen to think that the advances made in charter schools, 

going way back to my home state, and now have been really, really 

significant and have helped lift all those boats. 

So, again, I want to thank all the witnesses. Excellent testimony. 

Thanks for engaging with us. There being no further business, we 

are adjourned. 

[Questions submitted or the record and their responses follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

75 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 34 here 86827.034
76 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 35 here 86827.035
77 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 36 here 86827.036
78 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 37 here 86827.037
79 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 38 here 86827.038
80 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 39 here 86827.039
81 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 40 here 86827.040
82 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 41 here 86827.041
83 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 42 here 86827.042
84 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 43 here 86827.043
85 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 44 here 86827.044
86 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 45 here 86827.045
87 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 46 here 86827.046
88 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 47 here 86827.047
89 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 48 here 86827.048
90 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 49 here 86827.049
91 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 50 here 86827.050
92 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 51 here 86827.051
93 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 52 here 86827.052
94 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 53 here 86827.053
95 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 54 here 86827.054
96 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 55 here 86827.055
97 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 56 here 86827.056
98 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 57 here 86827.057
99 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 58 here 86827.058
100 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 59 here 86827.059
101 

[Whereupon, at 12:31 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER