District of Columbia Charter Schools: Criteria for Awarding School Buildings to Charter Schools Needs Additional Transparency
Published: 2011-03-09T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Almost 40 percent of all public school students in the District of Columbia (D.C. or District) were enrolled in charter schools in the 2010-11 school year. The D.C. School Reform Act established the Public Charter School Board (PCSB) for the purpose of authorizing and overseeing charter schools. Congress required GAO to conduct a management evaluation of PCSB. GAO addresses the following: (1) the mechanisms in place to review the performance and operations of PCSB, (2) the procedures and processes PCSB has in place to oversee and monitor the operations of D.C. charter schools, and (3) the resources available to charter schools for their operations and facilities. GAO interviewed officials from D.C. agencies and 7 charter schools and reviewed oversight procedures for PCSB and charter schools. GAO also reviewed the processes for providing resources to charter schools and analyzed data on these resources.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Although the Mayor appoints members to the board, PCSB has operated outside of the control of the Mayor and the Chancellor of traditional D.C. public schools; however, several agencies review PCSB's performance and operations. The D.C. Council holds annual hearings to examine PCSB's organization, personnel, budget, programs, policies, contracting, and procurement. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer oversees PCSB's budget development, operations, and financial reporting and reviews PCSB's monthly financial reports and year-end audits. Other offices monitor compliance with applicable laws and may conduct investigations or audits of PCSB when issues arise. PCSB launched its new performance accountability system to oversee the District's charter schools in school year 2009-2010. However, in October 2010, just weeks before the results were to be released, PCSB decided to withhold the results from the public due to concerns about data accuracy and plans to use the data collected to further test and develop the system. The new system, called the Performance Management Framework (PMF), is designed to assess charter schools using common measures for academic performance, compliance with applicable laws, and financial management, among other things. As it implements the new system for the 2010-2011 school year, PCSB is currently collaborating with charter schools to develop and revise the system, and has more recently begun providing more detailed information to charter schools about how it will revise the system. D.C. charter schools may receive funding from local, federal, and private sources for their operations and facilities and also have access to other District resources, including former D.C. school buildings; however, the criteria for awarding former school buildings to charter schools could be more transparent. The primary source of support for charter schools is local per-pupil funding, which is allocated to charter schools on the same basis as all public schools in the District. Charter schools also receive a per-pupil allotment from the District for facilities. In addition to local funds, charter schools are eligible to receive federal formula funding, federal discretionary grants, and private funding, such as foundation grants and commercial loans to purchase or renovate school buildings. To date, charter schools lease or will lease about half of the former D.C. school buildings that have been made available pursuant to a provision in D.C. law that provides charter schools with a right of first offer for these buildings. However, we found that the District does not include in its requests for offers all factors it may consider, such as economic development or other goals of the Mayor, when determining whether to accept or reject an offer. In addition, the District does not sufficiently document the basis for rejecting offers. Charter school officials and advocates expressed concern about the transparency and fairness in how the District makes decisions regarding former D.C. school buildings.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that the Mayor of the District of Columbia direct the Department of Real Estate Services to disclose all factors considered in reviewing charter school offers for former D.C. school buildings and make available to schools, in writing, the reasons the offers were rejected. The District agreed with our recommendations and noted that the Department of Real Estate Services has already taken steps to improve the process for awarding former D.C. school buildings to charter schools.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: When the school doors opened in the District of Columbia (the District or  D.C.) in school year 2010-2011, almost 40 percent of all public school  students were enrolled in charter schools.  As of the 2009-2010 school  year, the District had the second highest percentage of students enrolled in  charter schools among large cities nationwide. Moreover, charter school  enrollment in the District has doubled in the past 6 years, reaching over  29,000 students in 52 schools on 93 campuses. The Public Charter School  Board (PCSB) authorizes and oversees charter schools in the District.
The District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2005 requires GAO to  conduct biennial management evaluations of D.C.’s charter school  authorizing boards; PCSB is currently the only charter school authorizer.  In this report we address the following: (1) the mechanisms in place to  review the performance and operations of PCSB, (2) the procedures and  processes PCSB has in place to oversee and monitor the operations of  D.C. charter schools, and (3) the resources available to charter schools for  their operations and facilities.
To perform this work, we interviewed agency officials and officials from  selected charter schools; reviewed agency documents and relevant D.C.  and federal laws and regulations; and collected data on local charter  school funding for operations. To determine what mechanisms are in place  to review PCSB’s performance and operations, we interviewed staff of the  D.C. Council and District officials in the Office of the Deputy Mayor for  Education, Office of the State Superintendent for Education, Office of the  Attorney General, Office of Campaign Finance, Office of the Inspector  General, Office of the Auditor, and Office of the Chief Financial Officer. In  addition, we reviewed relevant laws regarding PCSB reporting and  accountability and examined reports related to PCSB’s compliance with  D.C. laws. To determine the procedures and processes PCSB has in place  to oversee and monitor the operations of D.C. charter schools, we  reviewed PCSB’s overall approach for monitoring charter schools’  operations, including financial management, compliance with charters and  applicable laws and regulations, and academic performance. More  specifically, we reviewed PCSB’s recently implemented accountability  system—called the Performance Management Framework—to determine  how PCSB implements its risk-based approach to monitoring charter  schools. We obtained additional information on PCSB’s oversight process  through visits with charter school officials in 7 schools—representing  approximately 13 percent of charter school students and 13 percent of  charter schools in the District in school year 2009-2010. We selected  charter schools to provide variation in each of several characteristics,  including location, academic and nonacademic performance, years in  operation, and type of facility (such as commercial space and former D.C.  school buildings). Our selected schools were not representative of all  charter schools, but provided some insight on how they operate. We also  conducted interviews with officials at charter school advocacy and  support organizations, including the D.C. Association of Chartered Public  Schools and Friends of Choice in Urban Schools, known as FOCUS. To  determine the resources available to charter schools for their operations  and facilities, we interviewed PCSB officials and District officials at the  Office of the State Superintendent for Education, and the Office of the  Chief Financial Officer.  We also interviewed D.C. charter school support  organizations and selected charter schools. We also collected data on local  per-pupil funding for operations for charter schools and traditional public  schools from the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. In addition, we  collected enrollment data for charter schools and traditional public  schools from the Office of the Chief Financial Officer and enrollment audit  reports provided to the Office of the State Superintendent of Education.  To assess the reliability of these data, we interviewed knowledgeable  officials to learn about the sources of data and steps taken to ensure the  completeness and accuracy of the data. For several of the data elements  used in this report, we were able to check the data we received from  agency officials against published sources; this was done in all cases  where published sources were available. We determined these data to be  reliable for the purpose of describing local operational funds allocated to  D.C. charter schools and traditional public schools. We also identified  other sources of funding for charter schools, including funding from  federal and private sources. In addition, we collected data, interviewed  District and charter school officials, and reviewed relevant laws and  regulations regarding other, nonmonetary resources available to charter  schools for their operations and facilities, including use of former D.C.  school facilities, local city services, and personnel such as school police  officers and school nurses.
We conducted this performance audit from December 2009 to March 2011  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: Charter schools are public schools established under contracts that grant  them greater levels of autonomy from certain state and local laws and  regulations in exchange for agreeing to meet certain student performance  goals. D.C. charter schools must comply with select laws, including those  pertaining to special education, civil rights, and health and safety  conditions. In addition, charter schools are accountable for their  educational and financial performance, including the testing requirements  under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended  (ESEA).
A wide range of individuals or groups, including parents, educators,  nonprofit organizations, and universities, may apply to create a charter  school. Charter schools in the District are nonprofit organizations and, like  other nonprofits, are governed by a board of trustees. The board of  trustees, which is initially selected by the school founders, oversees  compliance with laws, financial management, contracts with external  parties, and other school policies. School board trustees are also  responsible for identifying existing and potential risks facing the charter  school and taking steps to reduce or eliminate these risks.
Charters to operate a school are authorized by various bodies, and may  include local school districts, municipal governments, or special  chartering boards. In 1996, Congress passed the District of Columbia  School Reform Act of 1995 (School Reform Act), creating PCSB as a  chartering authority. PCSB was established with the purpose of  approving, overseeing, renewing, and revoking charters. After granting  charters to schools, PCSB is responsible for monitoring charter schools’  academic achievement, operations, and compliance with applicable laws.  While the Mayor and Chancellor of the District of Columbia Public Schools  (DCPS) oversee traditional public schools, PCSB is responsible for holding  the District’s charter schools accountable for academic results and  compliance with applicable laws.
PCSB is comprised of seven unpaid board members with expertise  relevant to charter school operation and approximately 25 employees who  implement the board’s policies and oversee charter schools. Under D.C.  law, the seven-member board is appointed by the Mayor, and members of  PCSB may serve up to two 4-year terms.  To support its operations, PCSB  receives local funds through the annual D.C. Appropriations Act. PCSB  also receives administrative fees from charter schools based on the  number of students enrolled as well as revenue from grants. PCSB’s  largest expenditures are for its personnel and program-related costs, such  as technology upgrades and charter school reviews that are conducted, in  part, by consultants (see table 1).
The D.C. School Reform Act allows PCSB to grant up to 10 charters per  year. Each charter remains in force for 15 years, and may be renewed for  an unlimited number of times. PCSB is required to review each charter at  least once every 5 years to determine whether the charter should be  revoked. Each year PCSB is required to submit an annual report to the  Mayor, the District of Columbia Council, the U.S. Secretary of Education,  the appropriate congressional committees, and others that includes  information on charter renewals, revocations, and other actions related to  public charter schools.
A total of 76 charter schools have opened in the District since BOE and  PCSB began chartering schools in 1996 and 1997, respectively. However,  between 1998 and 2010, 24 charter schools closed, many for fiscal  mismanagement discovered through PCSB monitoring. As of the 2010-11  school year, 52 charter schools across 93 campuses are in operation,  serving over 29,000 students at all education levels, including early  childhood and adult education. Charter schools in the District represent  varied instructional and academic models. For example, some schools  have a particular curricular emphasis, such as math and science, art, or  foreign language, while other charter schools focus on specific  populations, such as students with learning disabilities, students who have  dropped out or are at risk of doing so, youth who have been involved in  the criminal justice system, and adults. In addition, one charter school is a  college preparatory boarding school. See appendix I for more information  on D.C. charter school characteristics.
Unlike traditional public schools, which are generally part of a larger local  educational agency (LEA), or school district, each D.C. charter school  operates as its own LEA for most purposes. As a result, charter schools  are responsible for a wide range of functions associated with being a local  school district, such as applying for certain federal grants and acquiring  and maintaining facilities. Charter schools may operate in a variety of  facilities, such as surplus D.C. school buildings, shared spaces with other  schools, and converted commercial buildings, including warehouses.  However, public charter schools in D.C.—like charter schools across the  nation—face challenges in acquiring facilities and funding facilities-related  projects. GAO has previously reported that charter schools consistently  encountered problems obtaining cost-effective and appropriate facilities.  The District provides various forms of assistance to charter schools for  facilities, including preference in leasing or purchasing former D.C. school  buildings. The District prefers to lease rather than sell these buildings to  charter schools so that they remain assets to D.C. residents.
section_title: Although PCSB Operates as an Independent Agency, It Is Subject to Performance Hearings and Financial Oversight
paragraphs: While the Mayor appoints members to the board, PCSB functions as an  independent agency within D.C. government. As such, it operates outside  of the policies and direction of the Mayor, and operates outside of DCPS  and the Chancellor’s purview (see figure 1). While PCSB functions as an  independent agency, PCSB and the Office of the Deputy Mayor for  Education coordinate on issues of mutual concern.
The School Reform Act, which created PCSB, outlines the operations of  PCSB and grants the board the power to appoint, terminate, and fix the   pay of its executive director and other staff who carry out the daily  operations of PCSB. The appointed seven-member board developed by- laws that established its operational procedures, including how appointed  board members will be removed. The by-laws also include a reference to  the board’s rules on gifts and conflicts of interest, which board members  must follow. In addition, the appointed board members establish policies  and procedures for evaluating the financial management, governance, and  performance of charter schools. PCSB staff implement the policies set by  the board and handle the day-to-day charter school oversight activities.  According to PCSB, its staff comply with all applicable D.C. laws and  regulations, including those related to procurement, ethics, and  employment.
While several agencies may conduct activities to review the performance  and operations of PCSB, the most regular and comprehensive activities are  conducted by the D.C. Council and Office of the Chief Financial Officer  (OCFO) (see figure 2). Similar to hearings the D.C. Council conducts for  other District agencies, boards, and commissions, its Committee of the  Whole holds annual performance hearings for PCSB to examine its  expenditures and performance. In preparation for these hearings, the  Committee generally requests information from PCSB on the following:    budget, including approved budget and actual spending;    programs and policies, including information on all policy initiatives,  studies PCSB prepared or contracted for, and a description of the  activities taken to meet key performance indicators;   ongoing or completed investigations or audits of PCSB or any of its  employees, and actions taken to address all recommendations identified  during the previous 3 years by the D.C. Office of the Inspector General or  Auditor; and   contracting and procurement.
In addition, OCFO oversees PCSB’s financial management. According to  OCFO and PCSB, OCFO’s oversight of PCSB includes reviewing budget  estimates and proposals, reviewing financial processes, and overseeing  cash management and procurement activities. OCFO manages PCSB’s  accounts payable, ensures procurement activities are administered  according to approved PCSB financial policies, and provides monthly  reports to the PCSB executive director and board members on financial  activities and budget variance. OCFO also oversees and coordinates  PCSB’s fiscal year-end process which includes ensuring the accurate and  timely closing of books for auditing purposes. In addition to the oversight  by OCFO, the School Reform Act requires PCSB to provide for an audit of  its financial statements by an independent certified public accountant and  forward the findings and recommendations of these audits to the Mayor,  Council, and OCFO of the District. According to an OCFO official, OCFO  may also conduct audits of PCSB.
Other agencies may conduct audits or investigations when issues arise.  The D.C. Office of Campaign Finance monitors appointed PCSB members’  submission of annual financial disclosure statements, has the authority to  investigate conflict of interest violations, and may impose fines and refer  cases to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. In 2009,  the Office of Campaign Finance conducted investigations of allegations of  conflicts of interest in response to concerns raised in local news reports  and concluded that the appointed PCSB members under investigation did  not violate conflict of interest laws. The District of Columbia Office of the  Attorney General (OAG) conducted a similar conflict of interest inquiry  regarding one of the same board members. OAG did not find any  violations, but made recommendations that the board strengthen its ethics  standards and formal policies which have largely been implemented.  These include recusal, financial disclosure, gift rules, and participation in  regular ethics training. PCSB has participated in ethics training but has not  yet established formal policies for implementing such training on a regular  basis. The D.C. Inspector General and the D.C. Auditor may also conduct  investigations or audits of PCSB.
section_title: PCSB Implemented a New Accountability System to Monitor Charter Schools
subsections: section_title: PCSB’s New Accountability System Is Currently Undergoing Revision
paragraphs: To improve oversight of charter schools, PCSB launched a new  accountability system—called the Performance Management Framework  (PMF)—to capture school performance information for the 2009-2010  school year (see figure 3 for the current version of the PMF). However, in  October 2010, about 2 weeks before the PMF results were to be released,  the board voted to withhold the results from the public, citing concerns  about the accuracy of the school-level data collected. For example, some  elementary, middle, and high schools had data accuracy issues with the re- enrollment and demographic numbers, and high schools were  inconsistently reporting graduation rates. In addition to withholding the  results to resolve data accuracy issues, PCSB later communicated that it  also wanted to thoroughly review components of the PMF to ensure their  analyses were accurate and fair. PCSB decided to use the data collected  for the 2009-2010 school year to further develop and test the new system,  while it continues implementing the system. Results from the current 2010- 2011 school year are expected to be released in fall 2011. As it revises the  new system, PCSB is working collaboratively with charter school leaders.  For more information on the PMF measures and components that are  under development or review, see appendix II.
According to PCSB officials, the PMF is designed to allow PCSB to assess  and compare all schools using common academic measures, target more  intense reviews to schools that are not performing well relative to other  schools, and use technology to streamline document submission and  review. The PMF is based on a common set of five academic indicators, as  well as nonacademic measures to evaluate school performance, as shown  in figure 3. Weights are assigned to each academic measure and these  academic measures are then combined to yield a final PMF score for each  school. This final score determines the level of additional support or  oversight a school receives from PCSB.
The PMF is also designed to assess schools’ nonacademic performance in  finance, governance, and compliance with ESEA and other applicable  laws. Nonacademic reviews are to be conducted annually. According to  PCSB officials, although a school’s PMF score does not include  nonacademic indicators, charter schools may face consequences,  including charter revocation, for poor financial performance or violations  of law discovered during governance and compliance reviews. To conduct  various academic and nonacademic reviews, PCSB uses internal staff,  consultants, and a recently established audit management unit that will  analyze and monitor schools’ financial statements and audits.
In addition, the PMF will be supported by a new electronic system to  streamline the review process and enable PCSB and charter schools to  exchange and share documents more efficiently. For example, under the  PMF, schools will submit academic performance data, annual reports, and  financial statements electronically for review. This review will allow PCSB  to identify potential issues and schools needing additional help or more  thorough, in-depth review. According to PCSB, the new electronic system  is expected to make the process of sending, receiving, filing, tracking, and  reviewing electronic versions of reporting requirements under the PMF  more efficient for PCSB and charter school operators.
section_title: PCSB Has Recently Communicated to Charter Schools Its Plans for Implementing the Revised PMF for the 2010-2011 School Year
paragraphs: Although charter schools initially received limited information about  PCSB’s plans for implementing the revised system, PCSB has more  recently taken steps to keep charter schools informed. In January 2011— about 3 months after PCSB decided to withhold initial PMF results—PCSB  provided information to charter schools about when it would revise and  implement components of the PMF and its timeline for soliciting feedback.  PCSB also provided charter schools with its timeline for collecting and  validating data, as well as information on how it would resolve data  accuracy issues, including developing data collection templates. PCSB  plans to solicit feedback from charter schools on the revised PMF model  for elementary, middle, and high schools in April 2011, and plans to hold  these schools accountable under the PMF for the 2010-2011 school year,  with results released to the public in November 2011. For adult and early  childhood schools, PCSB expects to implement the PMF for the 2012-2013  school year. Moving forward, PCSB plans to provide updates to charter  schools on its progress in revising the PMF in weekly e-mail messages.
section_title: Charter Schools Receive Funding and Other Resources for Their Operations and Facilities
subsections: section_title: D.C. Charter Schools May Receive Local, Federal, and Private Funding for Their Operations and Facilities
paragraphs: D.C. charter schools may receive funding for their operations and facilities  from a range of sources. Like traditional public schools in the District, the  primary source of funding for charter schools is local appropriations,  which is allocated on the basis of a per-pupil formula that takes several  factors into consideration. As shown in table 2, the amount charter  schools and DCPS receive per pupil varies based on grade level, ranging  from $6,578 for adult students to $11,752 for preschool students in school  year 2009-2010. Schools also receive add-on amounts to account for  differences in the cost of educating certain student populations, such as  special education and limited English proficient students. For example,  schools that served kindergarten students who require more than 24 hours  per week of special education services received a total of $36,220 per pupil  for such students in school year 2009-2010. In addition, to help cover the  cost of charter school facilities, most of which are commercial buildings  around the city, charter schools receive a local per-pupil facilities  allowance. For the 2009-2010 school year, the facilities allowance was  $2,800 per pupil for nonresidential students and $8,395 per pupil for  schools that provide residential room and board.
Although local funding for operations for both charter schools and  traditional schools is determined based on the same formula, charter  schools receive funding based on actual, or audited, enrollment while  DCPS receives funds based on projected enrollment. Charter schools  receive four payments during the fiscal year, which are reconciled based  on audited enrollment figures. For example, if a charter school’s audited  enrollment is higher or lower than projected, subsequent payments will be  increased or decreased accordingly. DCPS receives spending authority at  the beginning of the fiscal year based on enrollment projections, and it is  not adjusted based on audited enrollment, according to District officials.
Charter schools may also receive federal and private funding for their  operations and facilities. Like all public schools in D.C., charter schools  are eligible to receive federal formula grants through various programs  under ESEA and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).  Because charter schools in the District are considered individual LEAs,  they may also be eligible to compete for federal discretionary grants from  agencies, such as the Department of Education, the Department of Health  and Human Services, and the Department of Justice. Furthermore,  between fiscal years 2004 and 2010, Congress appropriated over $104  million directly to the District to fund programs intended to expand public  charter schools. Some of the programs for which federal payments were  used included facilities financing for charter schools through which the  District awarded more than 80 grants and loans to help charter schools  build, improve, lease, or purchase facilities. In addition, charter schools  may engage in fundraising activities and accept grants and gifts from  corporations, foundations, and other organizations, as long as the gift is  not subject to any condition contrary to law or their charters. For  example, some of the charter schools we visited held yearly fundraisers  and received annual gifts from corporations. Charter schools may also  generate income by charging tuition and fees for students who live outside  of the District or renting out property. In addition, charter schools may  take out private loans to secure their facilities.
section_title: D.C. Charter Schools Have Access to Nonfinancial Resources
paragraphs: D.C. charter schools may receive local personnel and services from the  District. Officials at some of the schools we visited told us they have been  able to obtain school police officers, nurses, crossing guards, and other  city services. In addition, 14 of 52 charter schools elected to use DCPS as  their LEA for special education services. For these schools, DCPS is  responsible for special education evaluations, placements, litigation, and  other services, according to school officials. However, charter schools that  serve as their own LEA for special education services are responsible for  carrying out these functions. All charter schools, including those that use  DCPS as the LEA, are responsible for providing direct special education  services, such as specialized instruction or staff.
Charter schools may also lease former D.C. public school buildings  through a provision in D.C. law, enacted in late 2004, which provides a  “right of first offer” to charter schools for school buildings DCPS  determines it no longer needs. This allows charter schools to submit  proposals for these buildings to the District before other entities, such as  private development firms. As shown in figure 4, DCPS transfers buildings  it no longer needs to the D.C. Department of Real Estate Services  (DRES)—an agency under the purview of the Mayor—which is  responsible for the District’s real estate portfolio management, among  other duties. The District then determines whether there is another  governmental need for the building before making it available to charter  schools under the “right of first offer” preference. Some former D.C.  school buildings have been used as homeless shelters, space for local  agencies, and additional space for DCPS during school renovations, among  other uses. If DRES determines there is no governmental need for the  building, DRES may issue a Request for Offers (RFO) from charter  schools.
As of December 2010, 52 former D.C. school buildings have been  transferred from DCPS to DRES and charter schools occupy or will  occupy 18 of these buildings (see figure 5). Twenty-five of the 52 buildings  transferred to DRES have been made available for first offers from charter  schools. The remaining 27 buildings were exempt from the right of first  offer provision due to a pre-existing lease, resolution of the D.C. Council,  or governmental use by the District. To date, charter schools have  submitted offers for 17 of the 25 buildings made available under the right  of first offer provision, and offers have been accepted for 10 of these  buildings. For accepted charter school offers, the property is appraised  and a lease is negotiated and, if required, executed with approval from the  D.C. Council. If no charter school submits an offer or the offers are  rejected, DRES may use the building for other governmental purposes or  lease the building for other purposes, such as use by a nonprofit entity,  according to agency officials. DRES may also transfer buildings to the  Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development  (DMPED) if there is potential use for economic development, according to  DRES officials. DMPED will then issue another solicitation for offers and  proposals from private developers or other entities. Some former school  buildings that were transferred to DMPED were awarded to development  corporations for residential and retail projects.
section_title: The Basis for the District’s Decisions to Reject Charter School Offers for Former D.C. School Buildings Is Unclear
paragraphs: For the offers that are rejected, we found that the RFO does not detail all  of the factors the District may consider in deciding whether to award a  school building to a charter school and that the basis for the District’s  decision to reject a charter school’s offer is not always sufficiently  documented. Specifically, the RFO states that the selection panel, which is  comprised of officials from DRES and the Office of the Deputy Mayor for  Education, will evaluate offers in the context of six evaluation criteria: (1)  educational vision, (2) project vision, (3) capability of respondent to  execute its vision, (4) past experience with similar project(s), (5) financial  feasibility, and (6) best interest of the District. Although the RFO criterion  “best interest of the District” is rather broad and could conceivably  encompass other factors the District may consider in evaluating offers, the  only additional information provided for this criterion in the RFO pertains  to whether the offer requires a District subsidy and maximizes community  involvement. However, the D.C. rule regarding disposition of former  school property states that the long- or short-term community  development; economic development; cultural, financial, or other goals of  the Mayor or the District may be also considered by the selection panel  when deciding whether to accept or decline charter school offers. Only  by looking at the D.C. rule would an offeror know that these additional  factors may be considered. Because the RFO does not clearly indicate that  additional factors beyond the stated criteria can affect whether a proposal  is accepted, potential offerors may not have a clear understanding of the  criteria that will be used to evaluate their offers. While District officials  felt that the criteria listed in the RFO were inclusive of all factors that may  be considered, some charter school officials and advocates we spoke with  expressed a lack of understanding and confidence in the fairness and  transparency of how the District made decisions to accept and reject  offers.
We also found that the selection panel does not always sufficiently  document the reasons for recommending that a particular charter school’s  offer be rejected. After consensus is reached on a charter school’s offer,  the selection panel provides a memorandum documenting its  recommendation for accepting a charter school’s offer to the Director of  DRES and Deputy Mayor for Education. According to District officials, the  Director of DRES and the Deputy Mayor for Education then make a  recommendation to the Mayor, who ultimately decides whether an offer is  accepted. For rejected offers, however, the selection panel does not  always document its recommendation, and although DRES notifies the  charter schools of its decision in writing, it does not include the reasons  that offers were rejected. While DRES officials told us that charter schools  may request a briefing to understand why their offers were rejected, the  rejection letter does not state that charter schools have this option.  Because DRES does not always document its recommendations for  rejecting charter school offers and the notification letter does not include  the reasons offers were rejected, charter schools may lack information  that could help them better understand the process and develop future  offers.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: In the District, charter schools, which enroll nearly 40 percent of all public  school children in the city, offer parents more educational choice. These  schools offer varied approaches to instruction and some target specific  subpopulations of students. Charter schools in the District, and in general,  were designed to operate with more autonomy and flexibility than  traditional schools, but like all schools, are accountable for ensuring that  every student receives a quality public education. PCSB has oversight over  all 52 charter schools, and its new PMF has the potential to be a valuable  tool for overseeing and monitoring charter schools. The PMF also has the  potential to provide more information to parents, school leaders, and  other stakeholders about the relative and collective performance of  charter schools across a range of indicators. As such, it is important that  PCSB take the necessary steps to ensure that its PMF is designed and  implemented well. PCSB plans to collaborate with charter schools to  develop and revise the system, and has more recently begun providing  more detailed information to charter schools about its plans for  implementing the revised system for the 2010-2011 school year. We believe  that ongoing collaboration and communication such as this is vital to the  successful implementation of the PMF.
The District faces tough trade-offs in how it uses its resources. Former  D.C. school buildings may be attractive locations for a range of city uses,  including charter school facilities. The growing charter school population  in the District makes appropriate, affordable space to educate students a  critical resource to the success of individual charter schools and the  District’s charter school movement as a whole. Therefore, it is also  important that criteria used to determine whether a charter school  receives a former D.C. school building are as transparent as possible and  that the basis for the District’s decision is clear and sufficiently  documented. Additional clarity and transparency regarding how the  District decides to use former D.C. school buildings may increase charter  schools’ understanding of the process and may help to avoid the  appearance of a lack of fairness among charter school officials and  advocates.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To ensure that the criteria for evaluating offers from charter schools to use  surplus D.C. school buildings are clear and the reasons for denial of offers  are communicated, we recommend that the Mayor of the District of  Columbia direct DRES to take the following two actions:    ensure the RFO on former D.C. school buildings clearly indicates all  factors that may be considered by the selection panel, and inform charter schools, in writing, of the reasons their offers were rejected  or of the opportunity to request a briefing to obtain such information.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to PCSB, the D.C. Mayor’s Office, and  the U.S. Department of Education. PCSB and the Mayor’s Office provided  written comments, which are reproduced in appendixes III and IV,  respectively. The U.S. Department of Education did not have comments on  the report. We also received technical comments from various offices  cited in the report, including DRES, D.C. Office of the Attorney General,  and the D.C. Council, which we incorporated throughout the report where  appropriate.
In its letter, PCSB stated that it has redoubled its efforts to work with  nationally recognized experts in school accountability systems as it further  validates certain elements of its new accountability system. The District  agreed with our recommendations and stated that DRES has begun taking  steps to improve the process for awarding former D.C. school buildings to  charter schools and will continue to identify ways to improve the selection  process.
We are sending copies of this report to PCSB, the D.C. Mayor’s Office, U.S.  Department of Education, and appropriate congressional committees. In  addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs can be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: D.C. Charter School Characteristics
paragraphs: Appendix I: D.C. Charter School  Characteristics adequate  yearly  progress  (AYP)
Type of  building(s)
Prekindergarten  (PreK)
Mission, curriculum,  or target population  adequate  yearly  progress  (AYP)
Type of  building(s)
Mission, curriculum,  or target population  adequate  yearly  progress  (AYP)
Type of  building(s)
Mission, curriculum,  or target population  adequate  yearly  progress  (AYP)
Type of  building(s)
Commercial  Reflects schools’ AYP status for 2010. Under ESEA, states are required to establish performance  goals and hold their schools accountable for students’ performance by determining whether or not  schools have made AYP. The Act requires states to set challenging academic content and  achievement standards in reading or language arts, mathematics, and science, and determine  whether school districts and schools make AYP toward meeting these standards. To determine AYP,  the District uses student test scores on the statewide exam in grades 3 through 8 and 10. “N/A” is  listed for schools that did not serve the tested grades at the time of the statewide exam or whose  sample size was too small to calculate AYP.
Individual charter schools may operate in several locations. The building types are for school year  2008-2009, except for National Collegiate Prep which opened in 2009. We were unable to obtain  current building information for all charter schools in the District.
section_title: Appendix II: Description of Academic and Nonacademic Components of the Performance Management Framework as of December 2010
subsections: section_title: Using state test scores, predicts whether a student will score at the proficient or advanced level in the future
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from Public Charter School Board
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the District of Columbia Mayor’s Office
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Sherri Doughty, Assistant Director; Charlene J. Lindsay, Analyst-in-Charge;   Raun Lazier, Vernette Shaw, Brian Egger, Vida Awumey, James Bennett,  Nora Boretti, Russell Burnett, Susannah Compton, Sheila McCoy, Sara  Pelton, and James Rebbe also made significant contributions to this  report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Charter Schools: Education Could Do More to Assist Charter Schools  with Applying for Discretionary Grants. GAO-11-89. Washington, D.C.:  December 7, 2010.
District of Columbia Public Education: Agencies Have Enhanced  Internal Controls Over Federal Payments for School Improvement, But  More Consistent Monitoring Needed. GAO-11-16. Washington, D.C.:  November 18, 2010.
District of Columbia Public Schools: Important Steps Taken to Continue  Reform Efforts, But Enhanced Planning Could Improve Implementation  and Sustainability. GAO-09-619. Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2009.
D.C. Charter Schools: Strengthening Monitoring and Process When  Schools Close Could Improve Accountability and Ease Student  Transitions. GAO-06-73. Washington, D.C.: November 17, 2005.
Charter Schools: Oversight Practices in the District of Columbia.   GAO-05-490. Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2005.
Charter Schools: To Enhance Education’s Monitoring and Research,  More Charter School-Level Data Are Needed. GAO-05-5. Washington, D.C.:  January 12, 2005.
No Child Left Behind Act: Education Needs to Provide Additional  Technical Assistance and Conduct Implementation Studies for School  Choice Provision. GAO-05-7. Washington, D.C.: December 10, 2004.
District of Columbia: FY 2003 Performance Report Shows Continued  Improvements. GAO-04-940R. Washington, D.C.: July 7, 2004.
Charter Schools: New Charter Schools Across the Country and in the  District of Columbia Face Similar Start-Up Challenges. GAO-03-899.  Washington, D.C.: September 3, 2003.
Public Schools: Insufficient Research to Determine Effectiveness of  Selected Private Education Companies. GAO-03-11. Washington, D.C.:  October 29, 2002.
DCPS: Attorneys’ Fees for Access to Special Education Opportunities.  GAO-02-559R. Washington, D.C.: May 22, 2002.
District of Columbia: Performance Report Reflects Progress and  Opportunities for Improvement. GAO-02-588. Washington, D.C.: April 15,  2002.
Charter Schools: Limited Access to Facility Financing.  GAO/HEHS-00-163. Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2000.
Charter Schools: Federal Funding Available but Barriers Exist.  GAO/HEHS-98-84. Washington, D.C.: April 30, 1998.
Charter Schools: Issues Affecting Access to Federal Funds.  GAO/T-HEHS-97-216. Washington, D.C.: September 16, 1997.