District of Columbia Charter Schools: Multi-Agency Plan Needed to Continue Progress Addressing High and Disproportionate Discipline Rates
Published: 2017-02-09T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: D.C. charter schools served about 45 percent of D.C.'s public school students in the 2015-16 school year. The District of Columbia School Reform Act of 1995 established PCSB to authorize and oversee charter schools. PCSB also oversees charter schools' use of suspensions and expulsions.
The District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2005, as amended, included a provision for GAO to conduct a periodic management evaluation of PCSB. This report examines (1) what is known about suspensions and expulsions in D.C. charter schools, and (2) to what extent PCSB oversees charter schools' use of suspensions and expulsions. GAO analyzed the most recent national federal data (school years 2011-12 and 2013-14) and D.C. data (school year 2015-16) on suspensions and expulsions; reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and agency policies and documentation; and interviewed officials at PCSB and other D.C. agencies, as well as other stakeholders selected to provide a range of perspectives. GAO also visited three charter schools that had high discipline rates.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Discipline rates (out-of-school suspension and expulsion rates) at District of Columbia (D.C.) charter schools dropped from school years 2011-12 through 2013-14 (the most recent years of national Department of Education data available). However, these rates remained about double the rates of charter schools nationally and slightly higher than D.C. traditional public schools and were also disproportionately high for some student groups and schools. Specifically, during this period, suspension rates in D.C. charter schools dropped from about 16 percent of all students to about 13 percent, and expulsions, which were relatively rare, went down by about a half percent, according to GAO's analysis. However, D.C. Black students and students with disabilities were disproportionately suspended and expelled. For example, Black students represented 80 percent of students in D.C. charter schools, but 93 percent of those suspended and 92 percent of those expelled. Further, 16 of D.C.'s 105 charter schools suspended over a fifth of their students over the course of school year 2015-16, according to D.C. data.
Note: Numbers may not add to 100 due to rounding.
The Public Charter School Board (PCSB) regularly uses several mechanisms to oversee charter schools' use of suspensions and expulsions. For example, PCSB reviews school-level data and schools' discipline policies to encourage schools to reduce reliance on suspensions and expulsions to manage student behavior. Several D.C. agencies have roles in overseeing charter schools and reported collaborating on other issues, but we observed a lack of consensus around roles and responsibilities regarding charter school discipline. Further, a plan to issue regulations addressing discipline disparities among D.C. public schools was unsuccessful because the D.C. agency that planned to issue the regulations was unsure of its authority to do so. Absent a coordinated plan to continue progress in reducing discipline rates in charter schools, as well as clarified roles, responsibilities, and authorities of D.C. agencies with respect to oversight of discipline in charter schools, continued progress may be slowed.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO is making two recommendations, including that D.C. education agencies collaborate on a plan to further reduce discipline rates and make explicit agency roles, responsibilities, and authorities regarding charter school discipline. The agencies did not explicitly agree or disagree with our recommendations and indicated they could deepen their collaboration.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In school year 2013-14, 2.8 million U.S. public school students were  suspended from school, with disproportionately higher rates of discipline  for students of color and students with disabilities, according to the most  recent available data from the U.S. Department of Education (Education).  The large and disproportionate numbers of suspensions and expulsions  for some students in our nation’s K-12 schools has received national  attention. This matter has prompted Education, in conjunction with the  U.S. Department of Justice (Justice), to issue guidance encouraging  states, school districts, and public schools, including charter schools, to  limit the use of suspensions and expulsions, as these practices—known  as exclusionary discipline—remove students from the classroom and  reduce their instruction.
In the District of Columbia (D.C. or the District), which has the fourth- largest proportion of its students enrolled in charter schools of any U.S. city, the U.S. Secretary of Education has raised questions about the rates  of suspensions and expulsions at some charter schools—public schools  established under charters that are granted autonomy from certain state  and local laws and regulations in exchange for increased accountability.  The entity with primary oversight of charter schools in the District, the  Public Charter School Board (PCSB), was established by the District of  Columbia School Reform Act of 1995. The District of Columbia  Appropriations Act, 2005, as amended, includes a provision for GAO to  conduct a management review of PCSB every 5 years, including its  oversight of charter schools. In this report, we examine 1) what is known  about suspensions and expulsions in D.C. charter schools, and 2) to what  extent PCSB oversees the use of suspensions and expulsions at charter  schools.
To determine what is known about suspensions and expulsions in D.C.  charter schools and compare them to national rates, we analyzed  Education’s biennial Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) for school years  2011-12 and 2013-14, the most recent years for which national data are  available. The CRDC is a comprehensive source of data on suspensions  and expulsions that collects comparable data across the nation’s public  school districts, schools, and students. As such, we used the CRDC to  make comparisons between D.C. charter schools, D.C. traditional public  schools, and traditional and charter schools nationally. PCSB also  collects information on suspensions and expulsions in D.C. charter  schools, but these data are not comparable to CRDC data on schools and  students in other states. At the time we did our work PCSB had data that  were more recent than data available through the CRDC (school year  2014-15 for PCSB versus 2013-14 for CRDC). We therefore chose to  present PCSB’s data in selected analyses in the report, while also being  careful not to make comparisons between the PCSB and CRDC data. In  its written comments on a draft of this report, PCSB noted the recent  availability  of data for the 2015-16 school year. We updated our analyses  accordingly to provide the most current picture of D.C. charter school  discipline rates. Doing so did not materially change the findings in this  report. PCSB provided us with these data on each charter school, which  are part of data that the District collects annually on both charter schools  and traditional public schools. We determined that the data from both  datasets were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report by  reviewing documentation about the systems used to produce the data,  conducting electronic testing, and interviewing Education and D.C.  officials. As part of our data analysis, we also examined whether certain  school characteristics—such as school type (charter versus traditional)  and the racial composition of the student body—were associated with a  higher incidence of suspensions in D.C. schools using a regression model  based on the 2013-14 CRDC. In order to obtain charter school  perspectives on reasons for high discipline rates in some schools, we  conducted interviews with officials at three charter schools, selected  because two had high discipline rates and one had reduced its formerly  high discipline rates, according to D.C. data. These schools also  represented variation on other school factors such as grades served and  academic performance.
To determine the extent to which PCSB oversees suspensions and  expulsions at D.C. charter schools, we reviewed documentation and  guidance from PCSB as well as federal and District laws and regulations.  We also reviewed documentation from other D.C. education agencies and  Education. We interviewed PCSB officials, as well as officials at other  D.C. agencies that have oversight responsibility for charter schools,  including the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE), the  District’s state educational agency; the Deputy Mayor for Education; and  the State Board of Education, including the Ombudsman for Public  Education and the Chief Student Advocate. Further, to obtain additional  context and insights, we selected and interviewed researchers and  officials from advocacy groups and associations with different  perspectives on charter schools and discipline. Finally, we reviewed  selected research studies that provided further context and insight into  school discipline in charter schools. For more detailed information on our  scope and methodology see appendix I. See appendix II  for the results of  the regression model.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2015 to February  2017 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Education and Justice have an initiative underway to support local and  statewide school discipline initiatives that build positive school climates  while keeping students in school. Education has made school discipline  reform a priority and recently launched its #RethinkDiscipline campaign to  increase awareness about the detrimental impacts of exclusionary  discipline. As part of this awareness campaign, Education has developed  a webpage where administrators, educators, students, parents and  community members can find data and resources to increase their  awareness of the prevalence, impact, and legal implications of  suspension and expulsion. This webpage contains, among other things,  guidance for addressing the behavior needs of students with disabilities  and a directory of federal school climate and discipline resources  available to schools and districts.
subsections: section_title: Characteristics of D.C. Charter Schools
paragraphs: Of the approximately 87,000 public school students in D.C. in school year  2015-16, about 45 percent attended charter schools, while about 55  percent attended traditional public schools. Charter schools in D.C. serve  students ranging from pre-kindergarten (pre-K) through grade 12. D.C.  charter schools offer a range of focuses and specialized curricula, such  as foreign language immersion or a focus on serving students who have  not been successful in traditional public school settings. For the vast  majority of public charter schools, students enroll through D.C.’s common  lottery system, My School DC.
D.C. charter schools, like all public schools, must comply with various  laws governing the education of children, including those pertaining to  individuals with disabilities, civil rights, and health and safety conditions.  Further, in January 2014 guidance, Education and Justice stated that  school districts that receive federal funds must not intentionally  discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin, and must not  implement any policies that have the effect of discriminating against  students on the basis of race, color, or national origin. In addition, charter  schools are to be held accountable for their financial and educational  performance, including the testing requirements under the Elementary  and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended. In D.C., all  charter schools are nonprofit organizations and are required to be  governed by a board of trustees. Members of the board of trustees are  selected according to terms laid out in the school’s charter, and the board  assumes a fiduciary role and sets the overall policy for the school.
Some D.C. charter schools are part of larger charter school networks that  have schools in other states, such as KIPP or BASIS Schools. While  some charter schools are managed by charter management  organizations—which may handle, for example, curriculum development,  teacher recruitment and training, and operational support services for the  charter school—other charter schools are single-school networks and  operate without such an entity. In the 2015-16 school year, there were  114 charter schools in D.C., run by 65 different organizations. In the  District, each charter school or group of charter schools functions as its  own local educational agency (LEA), both for purposes of Title I of  ESEA, and other purposes. As such, each charter school or group of  charter schools is responsible for a wide range of functions associated  with being an LEA, such as applying for certain federal grants and  acquiring and maintaining facilities. PCSB officials told us that each  charter LEA also has the autonomy to establish its own discipline policies  and suspend and expel students. Officials from the State Board of  Education also told us that, unlike D.C. traditional public schools, charter  LEAs are not subject to the discipline policies and procedures in D.C.  municipal regulations.
As shown in figure 1, charter schools and traditional public schools in  D.C. both serve a largely Black population. In the 2013-14 school year, 80  percent of the students in charter schools were Black, compared to 67  percent in traditional public schools in the District. Both charter and  traditional public schools in D.C. serve much higher percentages of Black  students compared to schools nationally, reflecting D.C.’s large Black  population.
With respect to students with disabilities, D.C. charter schools serve  slightly lower percentages of these students than D.C. traditional public  schools, but D.C. charter schools and D.C. traditional public schools both  serve slightly higher percentages of these students than their national  counterparts (see fig. 1). The Individuals  with Disabilities Education Act  (IDEA) contains specific procedures that govern the discipline of IDEA- eligible students with disabilities. In 2016, Education issued two pieces  of “significant guidance” relevant to these students. The first emphasizes  the importance of using IDEA’s individualized education program (IEP)  and placement provisions to provide needed positive behavioral  interventions and supports and other strategies to address the behavior of  a student whose behavior impedes his or her learning or that of others.  The guidance explains that these supports are especially important in  light of research showing the detrimental effects of disciplinary  suspensions, both short- and long-term, on students with disabilities.  The second guidance document emphasizes that charter schools have  the same obligation as other public schools to provide IDEA-eligible  students with these supports, as well as all other protections under the  law. In addition, Education noted in this guidance that it expects that a  charter school authorizer will be able to ensure that any charter school  that it authorizes complies with the terms of its charter, as well as  applicable federal and state laws, including IDEA and other civil rights  laws. Examples of covered disabilities under IDEA include intellectual  disabilities, hearing or visual impairments, emotional disturbance, autism,  and specific learning disabilities.
section_title: Charter School Governance Structure
paragraphs: In the District, traditional public schools and charter schools have different  oversight structures. The Chancellor of D.C. Public Schools oversees the  traditional public schools, which operate as a single LEA. In contrast,  each charter school or group of charter schools operates as its own LEA.  The District of Columbia School Reform Act of 1995 (School Reform Act)  established PCSB, an independent agency which provides the primary  oversight of D.C. charter schools. However, as in the states, general  oversight of federal education program funding requirements—including  requirements for serving students with disabilities and those related to  federal civil rights—is the responsibility of the state educational agency,  which in D.C. is OSSE. In addition, other D.C. education agencies are to  coordinate with PCSB and interact with charter schools in various ways  (see fig. 2).
PCSB, as the sole chartering authority in D.C., has the power to approve,  oversee, renew, and revoke charters. (See app. III  for a list of PCSB’s  responsibilities.) PCSB reviews applications for new charters, as  described in appendix IV, and then is responsible for monitoring charter  schools’ academic achievement, operations, and compliance with  applicable laws. PCSB is also required to submit an annual report that  includes information on charter renewals, revocations, and other actions  related to public charter schools. (See app. V for more information on  PCSB’s annual reporting.) The School Reform Act allows PCSB to grant  up to 10 charters per year. Each charter remains in force for 15 years.  After 15 years in operation, if a school desires to renew its charter, it is  required to submit a renewal application requesting to renew its charter  for another 15-year term. Charters may be renewed an unlimited  number of times. PCSB is also required to review each charter at least  once every 5 years to determine whether the charter should be revoked.
PCSB itself is comprised of seven unpaid board members who are  appointed by the Mayor, with the advice and consent of the D.C. Council,  and who are to be selected so that knowledge of specific areas related to  charter schools is represented on the board. In addition, there are 37  employees who implement the board’s policies and oversee charter  schools. PCSB’s main source of revenue is administrative fees from  charter schools, and its main expenditures are for its personnel and for  other costs related to its monitoring activities (see app. VI for more  information on PCSB’s revenues and expenditures).
section_title: Rights of Students Suspended or Expelled from Charter Schools
paragraphs: Students who are suspended or expelled from any public school have  certain rights. These rights are derived from a number of sources,  including state and federal constitutional and statutory law and court  decisions interpreting them. For instance, the U.S. Supreme Court has  held that all students facing temporary suspension have interests  qualifying for protection under the Due Process Clause of the U.S.  Constitution and that due process requires, in connection with a  suspension of 10 days or less, that a student be given oral or written  notice of the charges against them and an explanation of the evidence  the authorities have and an opportunity to present the student’s side of  the story. Further, students with disabilities under IDEA have specific  rights afforded under that statute. In particular, if a school proposes  suspending a student served under IDEA for more than 10 days, the LEA,  the student’s parents, and relevant members of a child’s IEP team must  conduct a review to determine whether the behavior in question is a  manifestation of the student’s disability. If so, the suspension cannot  proceed. Students with disabilities also have rights to educational  services while suspended.
section_title: Suspension and Expulsion Rates in D.C. Charter Schools Are Down, but Are About Twice the National Charter School Rates
paragraphs: District of Columbia Charter School Discipline at a Glance
Discipline rates for charter schools overall dropped from school year 2011-12 through school year 2013-14 according to federal data, and continued to drop through school year 2015-16, according to D.C. data.
According to federal data, in school year 2013-14: o Both charter and traditional public schools in D.C. had suspension rates that were about double the rates for schools nationally. o D.C. charter school suspension rates were slightly higher than D.C. traditional public school suspension rates overall. o Discipline rates remain disproportionately high for Black students and students with disabilities.
Rates for individual charter schools varied widely in 2015-16, according to D.C. data.
subsections: section_title: Discipline Rates of Students in D.C. Charter Schools Have Dropped
paragraphs: Discipline rates—that is, out-of-school suspensions and expulsions—at  D.C. charter schools dropped from school year 2011-12 through school  year 2013-14, but remained disproportionately high for Black students  and students with disabilities, as well as at some schools. The overall  suspension rate for K-12 students dropped from 16.4 percent of all  students to 13.4 percent, a 3 percentage point drop from school years  2011-12 to 2013-14, the most recent years for which national data are  available (see fig. 3). The number of students suspended similarly  dropped from 4,465 to 3,980 students over that same period. D.C.’s own  data, which is collected annually and is more recent, also indicated that  suspension rates for D.C. charters schools dropped from school year  2012-13 through school year 2015-16. (See app. VII  for PCSB’s data on  D.C. charter school discipline rates for school years 2012-13 through  2015-16).
Expulsions for K-12 students were also down, with 188 students expelled  in 2011-12 (a rate of 0.7 percent) compared to 133 students expelled in  D.C. charter schools in 2013-14 (a rate of 0.4 percent), according to  Education’s data (see fig.3). D.C.’s data similarly show expulsion rates for  D.C. charter schools dropping over the 4-year period from 2012-13  through 2015-16 (see app. VII).  Expulsions for pre-K students remained  very low—there were zero pre-K expulsions in 2013-14 compared to two  expulsions in 2011-12—an expulsion rate of less than .01 percent.
section_title: Suspension Rates in D.C. Schools Are About Twice the National Rates
paragraphs: In both 2011-12 and 2013-14 both D.C. charter schools and traditional  public schools had suspension rates that were about double the rates for  schools nationally, according to Education’s data (see fig. 4). For  example, in 2013-14, D.C charter schools had about a 13 percent  suspension rate, while the national rate for all charter schools was about  6 percent. This was also true for expulsions, with charter schools in D.C.  reporting double the rate of charter schools nationally. Within D.C.,  charter schools’ suspension rates were slightly higher than D.C.  traditional public schools. In the same year, D.C. charter schools expelled  133 K-12 students (a rate of 0.4 percent). D.C. charter school students  who are expelled are not permitted to return to their charter school. They  typically return to their traditional public school for the remainder of the  school year but may re-enter the D.C. school lottery for a different charter  school the next year. In contrast, D.C. traditional public schools generally  do not expel students. Instead, D.C. traditional public schools generally  use long-term suspensions (greater than 11 days) and temporarily  transfer these students to an alternative middle and high school.
Further, for both charter and traditional public schools in D.C., some  stakeholders we spoke with had concerns about schools removing  students from school without issuing them formal suspensions—a  practice they said occurs in some schools. Both the Ombudsman for  Public Education and officials from a legal advocacy group for children  told us they had worked on cases in which students were sent home for  part or all of a school day for behavior-related reasons without being  formally suspended. The three D.C. charter schools we visited all  engaged in these practices to some extent. For example, at one of the  three schools, officials said a student may be asked to stay home, but not  formally suspended, while the school investigates a behavior incident.  Such full-day removals from school should be reported as suspensions  under D.C. law, which defines out-of-school suspension as removing a  student from school for disciplinary reasons for 1 school day or longer.  At this school and the two others we visited, officials also said that when a  behavioral incident occurs, they may send a student home for the  remainder of the school day without issuing a formal suspension. Based  on D.C.’s legal definition of suspension and PCSB reporting  requirements, these partial day removals would only be tracked in the  D.C. data if the student had a disability and was sent home for at least  half of the school day. PCSB officials told us they require charter schools  to follow the law in reporting suspensions and have discouraged schools  from using partial day removals as a way to avoid formal suspensions.  Frequent partial or full day removals from school can contribute to a  significant amount of missed instruction time that is currently not fully  captured, tracked, or monitored by PCSB or other D.C. education  agencies, despite their stated goals of using data to reduce exclusionary  discipline practices.
section_title: Discipline Rates Varied Widely Among Student Groups and Schools in D.C.
paragraphs: Although suspension and expulsion rates at D.C. charter schools have  dropped overall and across most student groups, rates varied widely  among groups of students and among individual  D.C. charter schools.  Specifically, Black students and students with disabilities were  disproportionately suspended and expelled from D.C. charter schools,  according to Education’s 2013-14 data. As shown in figure 5, although  Black students represented 80 percent of charter school enrollment, they  represented 93 percent of those suspended and 92 percent of those  expelled. Black boys, who represented 39 percent of enrolled students,  were 56 percent of those suspended and 55 percent of those expelled  over this period (not shown). Similarly, students with disabilities  comprised 12 percent of D.C. charter school enrollment but represented  20 percent of those suspended and 28 percent of those expelled.
Our analysis also found that the rates of suspension for Black students in  D.C. charter schools were about six times higher than the rates for White  students and the rates for students with disabilities were almost double  the rates for students without disabilities, as shown in figure 6. In addition,  male students in D.C. charter schools had suspension rates that were  approximately 65 percent higher and expulsion rates that were two times  higher than female students (not shown). The pattern of higher rates of  discipline for Black students, students with disabilities (as shown in fig. 7),  and male students (not shown) also occurred in D.C. traditional public  schools, as well as charter and traditional public schools nationally.  Further, our regression model found an association between some  student characteristics and a higher incidence of suspensions.  Specifically, schools that served upper grades (grade 6 and up), or  served higher percentages of Black students or English Learners were  associated with higher rates of suspensions. This effect existed for both  types of public schools in D.C. but was larger for traditional public schools  than charter schools. (See app. I for a full discussion of the regression  analysis and app. II  for the results.)
When we looked at suspensions and expulsions for individual D.C.  charter schools for school year 2015-16, we found wide variation in rates.  In particular, 16 of the 105 D.C. charter schools suspended 20 percent or  more of their students, with 5 schools suspending 30 percent or more of  their students over the course of that school year. With respect to  expulsions, 6 charter schools expelled more than 1 percent of their  students, and these 6 schools accounted for over half of all charter school  expulsions. (See fig. 8; see app. VII  for a full list of D.C. charter schools  and their school year 2015-16 discipline rates.) The schools with the  highest suspension rates tended to serve middle school students (grades  5-8), while the schools with the highest expulsion rates varied in the  grades they served.
PCSB officials said that the D.C. charter schools with the highest rates  either served high percentages of at-risk students or had strict discipline  policies. According to these officials, some of these charter schools serve  a high percentage of students with risk factors associated with behavioral  problems—such as being formerly incarcerated or expelled—and these  schools may struggle to manage their behavior while maintaining a safe  school environment. One charter school we visited fell into this category  and officials told us that their rates were high because they served many  students who had been encouraged to leave their previous schools  because of bad behavior. In addition, charter school officials in all three  schools we visited said that managing the behavioral issues of some  students with disabilities was one of the key discipline challenges they  faced. Officials at these schools also said that many of their students  have experienced trauma, which can manifest as behavior issues in the  classroom. All of these schools had hired or planned to hire more mental  health experts to better address these issues. However, officials at two  schools said they have had challenges obtaining additional mental health  resources and added that their staff could benefit from further training on  working with traumatized students.
With respect to school discipline policies, PCSB officials also said that  many of the schools with high discipline rates are part of networks with  reputations for strict policies. For example, they said that one network  started with a “no excuses” discipline philosophy that encouraged  punishment for minor offenses, although their approach to discipline is  now changing. PCSB officials described another network that runs D.C.  charter schools with high suspension rates as having an “elaborate”  behavior management system, which uses 1-day suspensions as an  anchor of their discipline system. The network does not see their high  suspension rate as a problem because their policy does not keep  students out of school for a long time, and, according to school officials,  helps correct student behavior. PCSB officials said they conducted an  analysis which found no correlation between 1-day suspensions and  withdrawal rates. However, several other stakeholders we interviewed  told us that some parents have withdrawn their children from so-called  “no excuses” charter schools out of frustration because of the multiple  suspensions their child received. Further, the Ombudsman for Public  Education said that her office had heard from some charter school  parents who were frustrated with such discipline practices, but felt they  had no option but to keep their child at the school for the remainder of the  school year because the school lottery had closed.
section_title: Efforts to Reduce Discipline Rates Have Met with Some Success, but Charter Schools We Visited Continue to Face Challenges
paragraphs: According to officials we interviewed, charter schools have made a  concerted effort to reduce discipline incidents but continue to face  challenges. According to PCSB and other stakeholders, most D.C.  charter schools have been motivated to address discipline issues in their  schools. At the three charter schools we visited, all of the officials said  they took steps to reduce their suspension rates and create a more  positive environment to reduce behavior problems. For example, one  charter school official described an approach that incorporates empathy  and problem solving skills to address discipline, while keeping the student  in school. This school is part of an OSSE pilot program in which five D.C.  traditional public and charter schools receive on-site technical assistance  to implement such practices. An official at a second charter school said  that they were using interventions and supports that emphasize positive  behaviors to reduce incidences of discipline. (See text box.) An official  from the third school said that they have implemented an alternative to in- school suspensions when a student is disruptive, giving the student an  opportunity to reflect and continue classwork in a separate environment.  D.C. data for school year 2015-16 showed that discipline rates in these  three schools had declined from 2014-15, although suspension rates at  all three remained above the public charter school average, with one  school’s suspension rate remaining above 30 percent.
Alternatives to Exclusionary Discipline  Restorative Justice Practices: An alternative disciplinary approach which uses non-punitive disciplinary  responses that focus on repairing harm done to relationships and people. The aim is to teach students  empathy and problem solving skills that can help prevent the occurrence of inappropriate behavior in the  future. For example, officials at one school we interviewed described asking a student who stole a laptop to  “restore” his community by writing a reflection paper, as well as attend Saturday school, instead of being  suspended.  Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports: A schoolwide framework, which focuses on positive behavioral  expectations. By teaching students what to do instead of what not to do, the school can focus on the preferred  behaviors. At one school implementing this practice, officials told us they instruct teachers to note three  positive behaviors for every negative behavior, for each student.
School officials told us that implementing changes to their discipline  practices and creating a more positive environment is time and resource  intensive and that full implementation would take several years. In  implementing these changes, schools officials told us they faced  resistance from both staff and parents. Some teachers may not fully  adhere to these new practices, finding it easier to remove students from class when they are misbehaving, according to charter school officials.  Officials at two schools said they had recently hired new principals to  more effectively implement their new discipline philosophies, and all three  of the schools had hired more staff to focus on school climate issues. In  addition, school officials told us that some parents protested the changes,  preferring a strict discipline culture that they perceive as keeping their  children safe.
section_title: PCSB and Other D.C. Agencies Oversee Charter Schools, but Have Not Created a Coordinated Plan to Help Schools Continue to Bring Down Discipline Rates
subsections: section_title: PCSB Collects and Publishes Discipline Data by School and Alerts Schools of Concerns
paragraphs: PCSB has increased its focus on school discipline in recent years and  uses several mechanisms to oversee charter schools’ use of suspensions  and expulsions (see fig. 9).
Specifically, PCSB officials said that in 2012, PCSB began reviewing  discipline data it collected from each charter school on a monthly basis.  They told us they use the data to focus schools’ attention on suspension  and expulsion rates and encourage schools to address high rates. In  these monthly reviews, PCSB officials said they examine year-to-date  suspension and expulsion rate averages, including averages by grade  band (pre-K, elementary, etc.), and also identify outlier schools that have  the highest suspension and expulsion rates, highest number of days  students were suspended, and highest suspension rates for students with  disabilities. PCSB officials said they communicate with schools regularly  about the patterns they see in their discipline data and that they request  meetings with charter school officials of outlier charter schools to discuss  their schools’ rates and how they compare to other charter schools.
PCSB officials told us they use this approach because charter school  officials will usually choose to make changes when they are provided with  this information. Officials from the three schools we interviewed said that  PCSB has generally been active in sharing information and data,  highlighting issues, and encouraging schools to reduce suspension and  expulsion rates. Further, PCSB has offered training and professional  development opportunities to charter school officials on topics related to  school discipline, including conferences on classroom management and  multiple quarterly meetings for school officials devoted to the topic.
PCSB and OSSE work together to annually publish discipline data by  school in Equity Reports, which are reports that PCSB officials said drive  schools to lower their suspension and expulsion rates. The Equity  Reports are also meant to provide school leadership, school boards,  families, and the community with information that will allow them to  compare data on both charter schools and traditional public schools in  D.C. See figure 10 for an excerpt from one charter school’s 2014-15  Equity Report.
PCSB officials told us that they also review schools’ discipline policies  during the charter application and renewal processes. These officials said  that they use the application process to shape new charter schools’  discipline policies. According to PCSB officials and application guidance,  PCSB is unlikely to approve an application whose discipline policy will  result in frequent removal of students from the school (see text box).  PCSB officials said that this process is their opportunity to ensure that  charter school policies limit the use of suspensions and expulsions. For  example, in a May 2015 letter explaining the reasons for denying a new  charter school application, PCSB noted that the “demanding behavioral  program may result in high percentages of students being suspended or  expelled and the founding team has not developed realistic supports to  meet the needs of all learners. When asked about how the school will  support students who struggle with strict behavior expectations, the  founding group…did not provide a cohesive and deliberate approach.”
Excerpts from PCSB Policy Documents  “Discipline plans that provide for expulsion for minor offenses such as  possession of tobacco or insubordination will not be approved.” –PCSB  Discipline Plan Policy  “PCSB is unlikely to approve applications for schools with discipline  policies that rely on school exclusion to manage student behavior and/or  that are likely to result in high rates of suspensions and expulsions.”        –PCSB 2016 Charter Application Guidelines  “PCSB expects that schools will only expel students for federally- recognized reasons.” –PCSB 2016 Charter Application Guidelines  With respect to charter renewals, which occur every 15 years, PCSB  officials said that recently they have begun to use this process to, among  other things, renegotiate parts of schools’ discipline policies. Officials said  that if PCSB and the charter school board fail to reach agreement, the  school’s funding will cease, which according to PCSB officials provides a  strong incentive for charter schools to comply.
In addition, PCSB conducts higher-level reviews of schools’ discipline  policies on an annual basis. Officials told us that these reviews are meant  to confirm that schools’ discipline policies include three key elements: due  process and appeals procedures, clearly outlined reasons for  suspensions and expulsions, and adherence to federal protections for students with disabilities in the discipline process. (See text box below for  the full list of discipline policy elements PCSB requires of charter  schools.) If a school’s policy does not include one or more of these  elements, PCSB officials said they will give the school 2 weeks to revise  the policy and, if the school fails to fix the issue, PCSB will send a “notice  of concern”— a formal, written notification alerting a school of issues that  need to be addressed. If the school still fails to fix the issue, PCSB will  send a charter warning letter indicating that the charter could be subject  to revocation. PCSB officials told us they have never had to send a  warning letter for issues related to discipline policies.
Required Elements of Charter School Discipline Policies
Parent, student, and staff rights and responsibilities;
Clear explanation of infractions, what specific acts are not tolerated in  the school, tiered consequences and interventions, and a clearly  outlined basis for suspensions and expulsions;
Due process and appeals procedures;
Provisions to ensure that all rules are enforceable and applied  consistently by all staff; and
All Individuals  with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) guidelines and  requirements, which concern services for students with disabilities.
Finally, PCSB also monitors parent and stakeholder complaints. PCSB  officials told us that if they notice a trend or pattern in these complaints  they will follow up with schools. They said that they have never had a  pattern of complaints against a school related to suspensions or  expulsions.
section_title: Several D.C. Agencies Oversee Charter Schools but We Observed a Lack of Consensus around Roles, Responsibilities, and a Key Agency’s Authority
paragraphs: While other D.C. education agencies also have oversight responsibility  with respect to charter schools (see fig. 2), plans to further bring down  discipline rates have been hampered by agencies’ lack of consensus  regarding roles and responsibilities, and by one agency’s stated lack of  clarity around its own authority. In interviews, the Deputy Mayor for  Education (DME), OSSE, and PCSB officials described different views  regarding agency roles in overseeing charter schools and providing  guidance and training. In particular, officials described differing views on  the appropriate scope of PCSB’s role with respect to charter schools. For  example, the DME—whose role is to oversee District-wide education  strategy—said that PCSB could issue further guidance on certain  discipline-related topics and place additional requirements on schools. In  contrast, officials from PCSB—the entity charged with overseeing charter  schools—told us that providing additional or more specific guidance  would be inconsistent with their role as authorizer. PCSB officials said  that they interpret certain provisions of the School Reform Act as  providing “a strong legal bulwark against the District government,  including , mandating school disciplinary processes,” thereby  limiting the actions that D.C. agencies, including PCSB, may take. In  addition, officials from these three agencies differed in their views  regarding charter schools’ needs with respect to discipline, including  whether charter schools needed additional guidance on due process  procedures, training, or other resources.
Further, OSSE officials said that the agency’s current view of its authority  to regulate charter schools on discipline differs from previous  administrations’ interests in that area, and that they still lacked clarity on  their authority in some areas. Specifically, in a 2014 report, OSSE—the  agency with general oversight of federal education funding  requirements—stated its intent to issue regulations applying to both D.C.  traditional public and charter schools that would address high discipline  rates. In the report, OSSE said that this effort would address potential  discipline disparities across D.C. charter and traditional public schools  and help ensure that all public school students in the District are treated  fairly. However, OSSE never issued the regulations, and OSSE officials  told us in 2016 that, in contrast with previous administrations’ interests, the current administration does not interpret the School Reform Act as  providing them with clear authority to issue such regulations. OSSE  officials also stated that the complexity of the D.C. regulatory framework,  combined with the fact that some regulations were promulgated prior to  the creation of D.C. charter schools, resulted in a lack of clarity around  their oversight authority over charter schools in some areas. OSSE did,  however, issue non-regulatory guidance in June 2016, which provides  high-level descriptions of federal and D.C. laws relating to school  discipline and cites some leading practices. It is unclear whether this  guidance will lead to any changes in charter schools’ discipline rates.  Subsequent to releasing this guidance, OSSE released a new report in  2016, concluding that further progress is still needed on discipline policy,  implementation, and disproportionality across all D.C. public schools.
Despite these challenges, officials from these three agencies and D.C.  traditional public schools have collaborated together on a key effort to  address discipline rates by publishing the Equity Reports for each charter  and traditional public school in the District. In addition, officials told us that  the other key D.C. education agencies reviewed OSSE’s draft non- regulatory guidance on discipline, and that officials from these agencies  also work together along with officials from other D.C. agencies that  support families and young people through regular meetings convened by  the DME. OSSE and PCSB officials said that they also promote and  support each other’s training programs on classroom management and  discipline. Further, they work together on education-related issues as  participants on a number of city-wide task forces and other collaborative  efforts. However, while some of those task forces focus on issues related  to discipline, such as bullying or truancy, none specifically address  discipline rates or disparities in a comprehensive manner.
Leading practices on interagency collaboration state that to achieve a  common outcome, agencies should agree on roles and responsibilities  and create mutually reinforcing or joint strategies that align the agencies’  activities, processes, and resources. Similarly, standards for internal  control state that to achieve an entity’s objectives management should  establish an organizational structure and assign responsibilities. The  agencies differing views on roles and responsibilities, and OSSE’s stated  lack of clarity on its authority around the issue of discipline in charter  schools makes it difficult for them to leverage resources and the collective  expertise of other agencies in the District to develop plans and strategies  to address D.C.’s high discipline rates. Absent such a plan, as well as  explicitly stated roles and responsibilities, charter schools may face  challenges in continuing to bringing down rates.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: PCSB and the District’s charter schools have made notable progress in  bringing down discipline rates in recent years. However, rates remain  troublingly high, at twice the national rate for school year 2013-14—the  most recent year for which nationally comparable data are available—and  particularly for certain schools and for Black students and students with  disabilities. PCSB has taken steps to address this issue by using school- level discipline data to focus schools’ attention on reducing reliance on  those practices that remove students from school. However, some  schools are removing students from school for partial or even full school  days without fully reflecting these actions in the discipline data or  consistently documenting them. As a result, PCSB does not have a clear  sense of how widely these practices are used or what strategies might  help it best address the problem.
PCSB, the DME, and OSSE all play key roles in charter school oversight.  While these agencies communicate regularly and have worked together  in a number of areas, including making data on school discipline across  all District schools more available through the Equity Reports, we  observed a lack of consensus around their roles and responsibilities, and  OSSE’s view of its authority to regulate charter schools on discipline  differs from previous administrations’ interests in that area. This has  contributed to inertia around creating and implementing a coordinated  plan that could help further address high discipline rates. Absent such a  plan, continued progress in bringing down discipline rates may be slowed.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: 1.  PCSB should further explore ways to more accurately measure  behavior-related time out of school—both partial and full day  removals—not captured under current reporting procedures.  2.  The D.C. Mayor should direct the DME and OSSE to deepen  collaboration with PCSB and other relevant stakeholders, such as  charter school LEAs, to develop a coordinated plan to continue  progress in reducing discipline rates and, as part of this process,  make explicit their respective roles, responsibilities, and authorities  with regard to discipline in D.C. charter schools. This plan could  include developing additional guidance, training, or resources,  consistent with the unique autonomy of charter schools.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to PCSB, the D.C. Mayor’s Office, and  Education for review and comment. PCSB’s written comments, which  also include technical comments, are reproduced in appendix VIII.  OSSE  provided written comments on behalf of the D.C. Mayor’s Office, which  are reproduced in appendix IX. Education and the D.C. State Board of  Education provided technical comments on the report. In each case, we  incorporated their comments into the report, as appropriate.
In its written comments, PCSB said that by not focusing our analysis on  D.C. data, we reached inaccurate conclusions. Specifically, it stated that  by focusing on CRDC data, which are most recently available for school  years 2011-12 and 2013-14, the report failed to acknowledge the more  recent reductions in D.C. charter schools’ suspension and expulsion rates  shown in D.C.’s own data for school years 2014-15 and 2015-16. PCSB  also commented on our analysis that used CRDC data to make  comparisons between D.C. charter school rates to those of charter  schools nationally. These data showed that suspension rates at D.C  charter schools were double the national rates for school years 2011-12  and 2013-14. In its comments PCSB presented a table with its own data  for all 4 of these school years and stated that its data show that D.C.  charter schools’ discipline rates have moved closer to national rates.  PCSB asked that our report prominently incorporate D.C.’s 2014-15 and  2015-16 data throughout.
As stated in our draft report, the most recent available PCSB data at the  time we did our work was for school year 2014-15, which we presented in  selected analyses where appropriate throughout the draft report. We have  updated these analyses with PCSB’s recently available 2015-16 data.  PCSB’s 2015-16 data continue to show modest declines in D.C. charter  school discipline rates, compared to previous years of PCSB data.
However, as stated in our draft report, PCSB’s data are not comparable  to other states’ data collected by CRDC. Further, because school year  2013-14 is the most recent year for which national comparable CRDC  data are available, it is not possible to know whether D.C. charter school  rates have moved closer to national rates, which may have also changed  since 2013-14.
PCSB agreed that D.C. charter schools’ discipline rates remain higher  than PCSB would like, and that they remain disproportionate with respect  to race and disability status. PCSB also stated that steady progress seen  in D.C. charter schools is the right way to reduce discipline. We applaud  PCSB’s efforts in steadily bringing down rates, as noted in the draft  report, and continue to believe that a coordinated multi-agency plan is  needed to continue this progress.
In addition, PCSB said in its comments that our draft report failed to  acknowledge the autonomy granted to D.C. charter schools under the  School Reform Act, which it interprets as preventing any D.C. agency  from mandating charter school disciplinary processes. We believe that the  report clearly states that each charter LEA has the autonomy to establish  its own discipline policies and suspend and expel students, and that  unlike D.C. traditional public schools, charter LEAs are not subject to the  discipline policies and procedures in D.C. municipal regulations.  However, as also stated in the draft report, PCSB exercised its authority  by putting some requirements and oversight mechanisms in place for  charter schools, including regularly reviewing charter schools’ discipline  data and policies. Moreover, Education’s recent guidance highlights its  expectation that charter school authorizers ensure that the schools they  authorize comply with federal and state laws, including those pertaining to  the discipline of students with disabilities.
PCSB did not comment on our first recommendation (that PCSB further  explore ways to more accurately measure behavior-related time out of  school—both partial and full day removals—not captured under current  reporting procedures). However, PCSB said that a related statement in  the report—that it has no official policy on partial day removals of  students for disciplinary reasons—was erroneous. We have removed this  statement in the final report.
PCSB and OSSE both disagreed with our characterization of their  collaboration around charter school discipline, but both indicated that they  look forward to deepening their collaboration to continue progress made  in reducing discipline rates. We have added additional information to our  report to more fully reflect new information both entities provided in their  comments regarding the level of collaboration between these two entities.
Finally, OSSE, in commenting on the report, agreed that there is some  ambiguity around its authority with respect to D.C. charter schools.  Specifically, OSSE stated that the complex D.C. regulatory framework is  unclear regarding oversight authority in some instances. As such, the  agency’s current view of its authority to regulate charter schools on  discipline differs from previous administrations’ interests in that area.  Specifically, OSSE stated that its current conclusion is that the D.C. code  does not provide OSSE clear authority to regulate charter schools with  respect to discipline. Such views about D.C.’s regulatory framework are  an example of the importance of clarifying agency roles and  responsibilities with respect to D.C. charter school discipline.
In light of PCSB’s and OSSE’s comments around collaboration and their  respective authorities around discipline, we modified our second  recommendation slightly. We now specify that these agencies should  deepen their collaboration in order to continue progress in reducing  discipline rates, and that in doing so they should make explicit their  respective oversight authorities, in addition to roles and responsibilities.  We also specify that the multi-agency plan to continue progress reducing  discipline rates should be consistent with the unique autonomy of charter  schools.
We are sending copies of this report to the D.C. Mayor, the Chairman and  Executive Director of the Public Charter School Board, and the U.S.  Secretary of Education. In addition, the report will be available at no  charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff should have any questions about this report, please  contact me at 617-788-0580 or nowickij@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix X.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The objectives of this study were to examine: (1) what is known about  suspensions and expulsions in District of Columbia (D.C. or District)  charter schools, and (2) to what extent the Public Charter School Board  (PCSB) oversees the use of suspensions and expulsions at charter  schools. To address these objectives, we used a variety of methods,  including analyzing federal and D.C. data; reviewing published reports  and monitoring documentation from PCSB and other D.C. agencies; and  interviewing officials from these agencies, representatives from  associations and advocacy groups, and officials from three charter  schools.
subsections: section_title: Data Analysis
paragraphs: To determine the out-of-school suspension and expulsion rates at charter  and traditional public schools, both in D.C. and nationally, we analyzed  federal data from the U.S. Department of Education’s (Education) Civil  Rights Data Collection (CDRC) for school years 2011-12 and 2013-14,  the 2 most recent years available. The CRDC is a comprehensive source  of data on suspensions and expulsions that collects comparable data  across the nation’s public school districts, schools, and students. As such,  we used the CRDC to make comparisons between D.C. charter schools,  D.C. traditional public schools, and traditional and charter schools  nationally. PCSB also collects information on suspensions and expulsions  in D.C. charter schools, but these data are not comparable to CRDC data  on schools and students in other states. At the time we did our work  PCSB had data that were more recent than data available through the  CRDC (school year 2014-15 for PCSB versus 2013-14 for CRDC). We  therefore chose to present PCSB’s data in selected analyses in the  report, while also being careful not to make comparisons between the  PCSB and CRDC data. In its written comments on a draft of this report,  PCSB noted the recent availability  of data for the 2015-16 school year.  We updated our analyses accordingly to provide the most current picture  of D.C. charter school discipline rates. Doing so did not materially change  the findings in this report.
subsections: section_title: Analysis of Federal Civil Rights Data Collection
paragraphs: The Civil Rights Data Collection is a biennial survey that is mandatory for  every school and district in the United States. Conducted by Education’s  Office for Civil Rights, the survey collects data on the nation’s public  schools, including student characteristics and enrollment; educational and  course offerings; disciplinary actions; and school environment, such as  incidences of bullying. From school years 2000 through 2010, the CRDC  collected data from a representative sample of schools, but in school  years 2011-12 and 2013-14, the CRDC collected data from every public  school in the nation (approximately 17,000 school districts, 96,000  schools, and 50 million students in school year 2013-14). The dataset  includes traditional public schools (pre-K through 12th grade), alternative  schools, magnet schools, and charter schools.
For school years 2011-12 and 2013-14, the most recent years of data  available, we calculated aggregate discipline rates. To determine the  extent to which discipline rates varied by student demographic groups  and school type, we calculated aggregate discipline rates by student  demographics and for all charter and traditional public schools in D.C.  Further, we calculated discipline rates for each school in D.C.—both  charter and traditional—to determine the extent of variation in rates by  school and school type. We also compared the aggregate rates in D.C.  charter and traditional public schools to rates for charter and traditional  public schools nationally.
We analyzed the following discipline and demographic variables:
Total out-of-school suspensions, calculated by combining the CRDC
Students receiving only one out-of-school suspension
Students receiving more than one out-of-school suspension
Total expulsions, calculated by combining the CRDC variables:
Expulsions with educational services
Expulsions without educational services  The CRDC has seven race and ethnicity variables, which we combined  into five categories, as shown in table 1.
We also analyzed rates for students identified as English Learners and  students with a disability. Our analysis of students with disabilities  included only those students served under the Individuals  with Disabilities  Education Act. We excluded Section 504 students because the CRDC  does not collect discipline data for Section 504 broken out by race and  ethnicity. In school year 2013-14, students only receiving services under  Section 504 represented 8 percent of public school students with  disabilities in D.C.
To analyze the poverty levels of schools with different suspension and  expulsion rates, we matched schools in both years of the CRDC with data  on free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) eligibility  from the Common Core  of Data, which is administered by Education’s National Center for  Education Statistics, and which annually collects non-fiscal data about all  public schools in the nation. These data are supplied by state education  agency officials for their schools and school districts. However, we  determined that the school year 2013-14 FRPL data for D.C. were not  sufficiently reliable for our purposes. These FRPL data differed  dramatically from the school year 2011-12 data and when we asked  officials from the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE),  the state educational agency responsible for reporting these data, to  corroborate these data, they reported having no confidence in the data  they had reported. Therefore, we did not use this FRPL data in any of our  analyses.
To assess the reliability  of the federal data used in this report, we  reviewed technical documentation about the survey and dataset and  interviewed officials from Education’s Office for Civil Rights about their  procedures for checking the data. We also conducted electronic testing  and logic checks of our analysis. Based on these efforts, we determined  that the CRDC data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We used  the version of the 2013-14 CRDC data that was publicly available as of  September 30, 2016 because it corrected errors in the original data  previously submitted by Florida.
section_title: Regression Analysis
paragraphs: We also analyzed the data using a generalized linear regression model to  determine (1) whether and the extent to which certain school level  characteristics are associated with a higher incidence of suspensions and  (2) whether and the extent to which an association exists between high  incidences of suspension and school type in the District (charter schools  versus traditional public schools). For our regression model, we used the  CRDC for school year 2013-14, limiting our analysis to suspensions  because expulsions are a rare event and therefore difficult to model. We  included demographic variables in our model that Education’s Office for  Civil Rights has identified as key drivers of suspension. We used these  variables in our model as follows:
Outcome: number of students with one or more out-of-school  Independent  variable: Charter school status (Yes/No)
Adjustment variables: Percent of student population that is male,  Black, students with disabilities, and English Learners; whether school  offers upper grades (grades 6 and above) (Yes/No)
Some variables that were thought to be important were not included in  our model due to estimation or reliability issues. Specifically, we  excluded:
FRPL in school year 2013-14, due to reliability issues as indicated by  OSSE, the agency responsible for reporting the data; percent of students within a school who are Hispanic, due to  collinearity with English Learners; and alternative school designation, due to lack of variability and  sparseness in data.
We used the number of students enrolled as an exposure variable to  account for different school sizes. Our analysis included K-12 schools.  We excluded pre-Kindergarten (pre-K) schools because pre-K  suspensions are rare and reported differently in the data. This resulted in  dropping 8 schools that offered only pre-K. Additionally,  for schools that  offered both pre-K and later grades we excluded out-of-school  suspension and student counts for pre-K students. We also excluded 5  magnet schools because they are too dissimilar to the other schools in  our model, since students are admitted to such schools based on the  merits of their application. With these schools excluded, the 2013-14  CRDC data resulted in 191 D.C. Public Schools in our analysis file, where  105 were traditional and 86 were charter.
All models are subject to limitations. For this model, the limitations  included:
The data we analyzed are at the school level, rather than student  level. Ideally,  data would be analyzed at the student level in order to  describe the association between a charter versus traditional public  school student’s suspension rate, controlling for characteristics of the  individual students suspended, such as gender, race/ethnicity, and  grade level. Instead, the school-level nature of the CRDC data limited  what we could ascribe to the association between these schools’  suspension incidence, controlling for the characteristics of the entire  school’s population, such as percent of students who are male, Black,  etc.
Some variables that may be related to out-of-school suspensions are  not available in the data. For example, in this context, it could be that  parent education or household type (single- versus multiple-headed  household) could be related to student behavior, such as those that  lead to out-of-school suspensions.
These data were not gathered through a randomized control trial in  which students would be randomized to attend either a traditional or a  charter school. Although there is some randomness inherent in the  lottery for oversubscribed charter schools, this is not systematic and,  for students who were offered the option to attend charter schools, the  students’ families decide whether to accept or not.
Typically, a generalized linear regression model provides an estimated  incidence rate ratio, where a value greater than 1 indicates a higher or  positive association, in this case, between suspensions and the variable  of interest, such as being a charter school or having a higher percentage  of Black students. An estimated incidence rate ratio less than 1 indicates  a lower incidence of suspensions when a factor is present. Given the  limitations of our model as described above, in appendix II we present a  general summary of association by providing the direction, rather than an  estimated rate (incidence) of suspensions of charter versus traditional  public schools in the District.
section_title: Analysis of D.C. Data
paragraphs: To analyze more recent data on D.C. charter schools, we obtained  aggregate data from PCSB for school years 2012-13 through 2015-16. In  addition, we obtained more detailed school-level data on charter school  suspensions and expulsions from PCSB for school years 2013-14, 2014- 15, and 2015-16 which are part of data that the District collects annually  on both charter schools and traditional public schools. The data included  published reports on discipline from PCSB, and Equity Reports for each  school. Equity Reports contain data on:  total enrollment;
Limited English Proficiency; suspension rate by student subgroup; and overall expulsion rate.
In addition, we obtained published reports on discipline, as well as data  from OSSE on the numbers of students transferred to an alternate school  for students who received long-term suspensions and expulsions in  school year 2014-15.
To assess the reliability  of the D.C. data, we reviewed documentation,  interviewed relevant officials from PCSB and OSSE, and conducted logic  checks. Based on these efforts, we determined that these data were  sufficiently reliable for our purposes. D.C.’s data however, are not  comparable to Education’s data because they do not distinguish between  pre-K and K-12 rates and because not all schools were captured in  Education’s data.
section_title: Review of Laws, Regulations, and Guidance and Interviews with D.C. Officials
paragraphs: To determine the extent to which PCSB oversees suspensions and  expulsions at charter schools, we reviewed documentation and guidance  from PCSB, as well as federal and District laws and regulations. We also  reviewed documentation from other D.C. education agencies that also  have a role in overseeing D.C. charter schools and reviewed discipline  guidance from the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. In  addition, we interviewed PCSB officials and officials at other D.C.  agencies that have oversight of charter schools. These other D.C.  agencies were
Deputy Mayor for Education;
State Board of Education, including the Ombudsman for Public  Education and the Chief Student Advocate; and
D.C. Office of the Inspector General.
We evaluated PCSB’s oversight of charter school discipline against  federal standards for internal control for communicating quality  information to external parties and establishing structure, responsibility,  and authority,   and evaluated D.C. education agencies’ collaboration on  this issue against leading practices for interagency collaboration.
We also reviewed selected research studies that provided further context  and insight into school discipline in charter schools.
section_title: Interviews with Advocacy Groups and Associations
paragraphs: To obtain additional context and insights, we selected and interviewed  researchers and officials from advocacy groups and associations with  different perspectives on charter schools and discipline. The researchers  and officials we interviewed were located at
The Center for Civil Rights Remedies at the Civil Rights Project,
The Center on Reinventing Public Education,
The Children’s Law Center,
The Council for Court Excellence,
The D.C. Association of Chartered Public Schools,
D.C. Lawyers for Youth,
The Dignity in Schools Campaign, and
The National Association of Charter School Authorizers.
section_title: Charter School Interviews
paragraphs: In order to obtain the views of charter school officials with diverse  perspectives on discipline policies and practices, reasons for high  discipline rates, and experiences with PCSB oversight, we interviewed  school and local educational agency (LEA) officials at three D.C. charter  schools. We selected two schools that had high suspension and/or  expulsion rates in school year 2014-15, as well as one school with  formerly high discipline rates, according to D.C. data. In making our  selections, we also took into consideration:  the number of LEA campuses in D.C., to get perspectives from large  and small charter school networks; grade levels served, because both research and stakeholders  indicated that discipline rates are higher for middle and high school  students than elementary school students; school location and demographics, to ensure that we spoke to schools  serving similar populations of students; and  rank in the 2014 Performance Management Framework (PMF), when  available, to get perspectives from higher and lower performing  schools. The PMF is PCSB’s rating system to measure school quality  and includes three tiers. The highest performing schools are ranked  as Tier 1, while the lowest are ranked Tier 3.
We conducted two interviews each for the three schools: we interviewed  LEA staff from the school’s central office and school-based staff including  the principal and other administrators with responsibility for implementing  discipline policy. We asked officials to describe their school’s discipline  policies and practices, how and why they have changed over the years,  and discipline challenges they are facing. We also reviewed their  discipline policies in their most recent student handbook, as well as other  relevant documentation, such as annual reports, renewal reports, and  Equity Reports which capture schools’ discipline data. Because we  selected the schools judgmentally, we cannot generalize our findings  about their policies, practices, and challenges.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2015 to February  2017 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Regression Analysis
paragraphs: Using the school year 2013-14 CRDC data, we conducted a generalized  linear regression model examining the association between District of  Columbia (D.C.) schools’ out-of-school suspensions and various school– level characteristics. For further discussion of our methodology for this  analysis, see appendix I.
Our regression model found an association between certain school  demographic characteristics and suspension, regardless of type of school  (charter versus traditional public schools). Specifically, serving the upper  grades (grades 6 and up) or having higher percentages of Black students  or English Learners were associated with a higher incidence of  suspensions. Further, our model showed that D.C. charter schools overall  were associated with a higher incidence of suspensions than D.C  traditional public schools. However, our model also examined the  interactions between school type and school demographic variables and  found that the association between school type and suspension rate  varied across several demographic variables. Specifically, while serving  upper grades, higher percentages of Black students, or higher  percentages of English Learners is generally associated with a higher  incidence of suspensions, this effect was smaller for charter schools than  for traditional public schools.
These relationships are shown in table 3, which presents coefficients from  our model, where positive means that a particular variable was  significantly associated with an increase in the suspension rate at the  0.05 level and negative indicates a decrease in the suspension rate.  Insignificant indicates the variable is not significantly associated with  suspensions at the 0.05 level.
Our model did not find an association between gender or the percentage  of students with disabilities in a school and increased suspension rates.  The absence of an association here may be due to the way that federal  data is collected and reported at the school, rather than student, level.
section_title: Appendix III: Public Charter School Board Responsibilities
paragraphs: The District of Columbia School Reform Act of 1995 (School Reform Act)  established the Public Charter School Board (PCSB) as an eligible  chartering authority with specific powers and duties. Under the School  Reform Act, PCSB has specific responsibilities with regard to reviewing  petitions (applications) for new charters, monitoring charter school  operations, reviewing charter renewal applications, and revoking  charters. Table 4 provides the detailed requirements for these activities  as specified in the School Reform Act. As required by the School Reform  Act, PCSB must issue annual reports and financial statement audits. (See  app. V for information on PCSB’s 2016 annual report.)
section_title: Appendix IV: Public Charter School Application Process
paragraphs: The Public Charter School Board (PCSB) reviews all applications for new  charter schools in the District of Columbia (D.C.), which can be submitted  by parents, educators, nonprofit organizations, or other groups. With  some exceptions, applicants must generally adhere to the same guidance  and must meet PCSB’s standards for approval. (See table 5.)
PCSB provides application instructions and sample documents on the  agency’s website. Once PCSB receives an application, the review  process generally takes 3 months. (For example, see table 6 for PCSB’s  fall 2016 charter application timeline.)
PCSB’s charter school application review is a four-part process including  written applications, site visits (if applicable), interviews, and public  hearings (see table 7). Following the application review, PCSB votes on  each charter application at a public meeting.
Applications for a charter school follow a standard format and are  required to include specific elements. (See text box.)
subsections: section_title: Criteria for Review of Applications
paragraphs: In addition to the written applications, site visits, interviews, and public  hearings, PCSB evaluates charter school applicants against established  criteria (see table 8).
section_title: Determination of Applicants’ Ability to Operate a Charter School
paragraphs: PCSB may approve any application if it determines that the application (1)  meets the legal requirements; (2) agrees to any condition or requirement  set forth by the authorizer; and (3) has the ability to meet the educational  objectives outlined in the application. If PCSB does not approve an  application, it must provide written notice to the applicant explaining why  the application was not approved. Based on all components of the  application process, the PCSB Board votes on each charter school  application at a public meeting. There are three possible outcomes for an  application:  1.  Full approval: Applicant has met all of the requirements.  2.  Conditional approval/approval  with conditions: Applicant is approved  pending satisfaction of all requirements, wherein they are determined  to have Full Approval.  3.  Denial: Applicant does not meet all of the requirements and no further  consideration is given to the application. Such applicants may address  the shortcomings and reapply in a future cycle, though not in the  same 12-month period.
section_title: Appendix V: Summary of Public Charter School Board 2016 Annual Report Contents
paragraphs: A list of the dates and places of each meeting  of PCSB during the year preceding the report.
December 14, 2015  January 27, 2016  February 10, 2016 (Special Meeting)
The number of petitions received for the  conversion of an existing school to a public  charter school and for the creation of a new  charter school.
The number of petitions that were approved  and the number that were denied.
Summary of the reasons for which such  petitions were denied.
Four public charter school proposals received:  1.  Sustainable Futures  2.  Interactive Academy  3.  Pathways in Education  4.  The Adult Career Technical Education  One approved—Sustainable Futures  One denied—Interactive Academy  Two withdrawn—Pathways in Education and The Adult Career Technical Education.  The Board denied the application of Interactive Academy for three reasons: (1)  capacity of the founding group; (2) insufficient development of the plan for supporting  students with disabilities; and (3) insufficient evidence of the success of the founding  group in driving academic achievement.
Annual Reporting Requirements  A description of any new charters issued by  PCSB during the year preceding the report.
A description of any charters renewed by  PCSB during the year preceding the report.
Content Shown in Report  Sustainable Futures will serve 131 students in its first year, growing to no more than  288 students by its third year of operation. The school seeks to serve disconnected  youth in the District and will offer project-based learning, along with a competency- based approach to allow students to move through the curriculum at their own pace.  The school will also offer social-emotional supports (e.g., mental health services) and  wraparound services (e.g., on-site health clinic, transportation assistance, and three  meals per day).  Two charters renewed:  1.  KIPP DC PCS  2.  Thurgood Marshall Academy PCS  Four charters reviewed:  1. Inspired Teaching Demonstration PCS  2. Imagine Hope Community PCS  3.  Washington Latin PCS  4.  The Next Step PCS.  Potomac Preparatory PCS charter revoked for poor academic performance.
A description of any charters revoked by PCSB  during the year preceding the report.   A description of any charters refused renewal  by PCSB during the year preceding the report.  Any  recommendations concerning ways to  improve the administration of public charter  schools.
No recommendations found.
section_title: Appendix VI: Public Charter School Board Revenues and Expenditures
subsections: section_title: Revenues
paragraphs: Grants includes both federal and private grants. PCSB  has not received any federal grant funds  since FY 2014.  Other revenues include school closure funds and sponsorship income, among other sources.  Other expenditures include facilities costs, community events, w ebsite costs, and other overhead  expenses.
section_title: Appendix VII: Public Charter School Board’s Discipline and Demographic Data
paragraphs: Appendix VII: Public Charter School Board’s  Discipline and Demographic Data Suspension  rate  (percent)
subsections: section_title: School name
section_title: School name
section_title: School name
section_title: School name
section_title: Appendix VIII: Comments from the Public Charter School Board
section_title: Appendix IX: Comments from the Office of the State Superintendent of Education
section_title: Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Sherri Doughty (Assistant  Director), Lauren Gilbertson (Analyst-in-Charge), Melinda  Bowman, Jean  McSween, John Mingus, James Rebbe, Alexandra Squitieri, and Sonya  Vartivarian made key contributions to this report. Also contributing to this  report were Deborah Bland, Grace Cho, Sara Daleski, Holly Dye, Lauren  Kirkpatrick, Sheila R. McCoy, Mimi Nguyen, Sara Pelton, and Ronni  Schwartz.