Empowering Parents Through Quality Charter Schools Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Minnesota.

There is a lot of good in public education today. When we look across our country, just as we see examples of what doesn't work--drop-out factory schools where kids are falling further and further behind each year, schools that are unsafe learning environments for their kids--just as we have that, we also have examples of what works, what works with our most at-risk populations in this country showing that every student in this country can learn and can achieve, given the right opportunity and the right school environment.

Now, charter schools aren't the silver bullet or the solution, but they are a tool in the arsenal of school districts in the States to address the learning needs of all students.

Nationally, there's over 5,000 charter schools representing just over 5 percent of all public schools in the country. Many of those charter schools couldn't have gotten off the ground without the Federal start-up grant that this bill reauthorizes. Importantly, again because we have examples that this works, this bill, for the first times, allows States to use the money to expand and replicate learning models that work.

I point to one in Colorado, the Ricardo Flores Magon Academy. Ninety-three percent free and reduced lunch, 86 percent English language learners, and yet they scored far above the State average in the past 3 years, 95 to 100 percent proficient in math and about 20 percent higher than the State average score--the State average score that includes wealthy suburban districts as well.

Yes, these students can learn, and schools like Ricardo Flores Magon Academy will now under this new authorization have access to expansion and replication money.

So, when models work--whether that's a model like KIPP nationally, which has successfully served some of our most at-risk communities, or whether it's grassroots efforts across our country--they will be able to access resources to serve more students and grow or to open up additional branches of the same school. National, State, and local research consistently shows that, yes, not all charter schools work. Some underperform other public schools. Some perform at the same level, and some do better.

What we do with this bill is we provide for best practices nationally. We've learned a lot in the last 10 years with regard to charter schools. We now have some best practices in this bill, like removing caps on the number of charter schools in districts. Through the manager's amendment, we ensure that charter schools can participate in food services as well as in transportation services in districts. I want to point out the importance of the transportation because, to make choice meaningful, to add the emphasis to choice, you have to have transportation options to get the most at-risk kids to school; otherwise choice is simply an empty promise.

By focusing Federal investments, as H.R. 2218 does, it ensures that we maximize the impact of our limited Federal resources on improving student achievement and reducing the learning gap across the country. To succeed as a Nation, we need to do a better job with our human capital in preparing the next generation of Americans for the next generation of jobs, and this bill will be an important tool in that arsenal.

I strongly support this bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, again, this process really demonstrates strong bipartisan leadership and a commitment to our Nation's children from both Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller, as well as all the members of the committee and their staff. And I express not only my deep appreciation but, I am sure, the deep appreciation of the many millions of children that this bill will help provide additional opportunities for to them both.

This manager's amendment makes a good bill even better, including allowing priority for States that allow charters to have autonomous school food services. It's critical charter schools are allowed to have independent food services. Many lack cafeteria space in some facilities, and this amendment will prioritize States that allow for that. We all know how important nutrition is for success. Transportation to and from charter schools is also critical.

The bill also allows for the expansion, for the very first time, a replication of successful charter school models, again deferring to States in that regard. Previously, these monies were only eligible for the establishment of innovative new charter schools, a worthy goal and one that is preserved under this bill as well. But we are now 10 years later down the road. We know a little bit about what works and what doesn't work.

Based on that, the bill in the manager's amendment, A, upped the ante on the best practices for the States in terms of being good authorizers, and, B, allowed some of the funds to be used to expand and replicate proven success, as well as preserving some for the continued innovation, which is also necessary to drive our education system forward.

This manager's amendment also supports dropout prevention and recovery and rural needs. Figuring out how charter schools can fit in the context of rural and smaller school districts has also been an important learning curve over the last 10 years. This bill and the manager's amendment incorporate some of the very best thinking in that regard in terms of making sure that States have plans to ensure that charter schools can also benefit rural areas.

This bipartisan amendment exemplifies the great work of the committee leadership overall in the bill and truly does improve upon the base bill. I am very proud to be strongly supportive of the manager's amendment as well as the underlying bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to bring forward this bipartisan bill. Let me express why it is important. To delay the expansion of a successful charter school for 5 years and prevent States from having the flexibility to deploy these resources after 3 proven years only consigns more kids to failure and lack of opportunity. It is an important amendment because it provides flexibility for States and charter schools to expand what works. And 1 year could be an aberration, 2 years of proven success can be lucky, but 3 years of success is hard to dispute.

When a school has 3 years of proven success, to make it wait 5 full years before it's eligible to expand with Federal money only consigns all of those students who would have been served to otherwise reside on the waiting list and are forced to attend schools that provide less educational opportunity. We are only young once in life, and that's why with regard to education and improving the quality of our public schools, we all feel the fierce urgency of now.

When a charter school starts out, it is not possible to predict whether it will be successful or not, and that's the purpose of the innovation grants. Without this amendment, charter schools that have proven success could be forced to wait 5 years before being able to replicate and expand, a wait that our Nation can't afford and, most of all, those kids on the waiting list can't afford.

This revision is especially needed for charter schools that don't use the grants for planning, which is another year before the charter school starts, so it could be 1 year or 3 or 4 years. But if they don't use the year for a planning year, it is actually a full 5-year wait before the school would have access to expansion and replication resources without this amendment. So I am particularly glad of Mr. Paulsen's effort to bring this forward.

The national activity section of the bill already reflects this. In fact, the national activity section provides funding after 3 years of demonstrated success, but that's only 2.5 percent of the total funds of the bill. Most of the funds under this bill are pushed to the States and allowed for the dual purpose of innovation and expansion and replication. And essentially what this bill remedies, it reflects the national activities language in saying that the States have the discretion, they are actually allowed to require 5 years of demonstrated success. I wouldn't encourage them to do that, but they have the flexibility to do it with 3 years of demonstrated success to ensure that proven educational opportunities for kids can reach more kids sooner under this amendment which is why I am proud to lend it my support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, again, one of the best practices that I think we have learned over the last 10 years is the importance of having alternative authorizing agencies. In fact, 32 States have created alternative authorizing agencies, including my home State of Colorado which has a charter school institute. In other States it takes the form of vesting mayors, university board of regents, or State boards of education as alternative authorizers.

Doing so ensures that bold ideas for charter schools brought forth by parents and grassroots community members are more likely to get a fair shot at being considered if there is an alternative authorizer, instead of what's already in the bill, which also should be present, which is an appeals process. An appeals process automatically kind of sets up a kind of adversarial relationship. We have that as well in Colorado. When I served on the State Board of Education, we heard appeals processes. So if a district turned down a charter school, it was appealed to the State Board. We could then overrule that district and force them to grant it. But it set up a very adversarial relationship.

What has proven to work better in 32 States that have it is having an alternative authorizer in addition to an appeals process so that districts that simply don't want to be in the charter authorizing business or that refuse to grant any charter schools or don't have an application process for them can simply allow another entity to provide the quality oversight that's needed for a charter school in the district.

One of the great evolutions of the last 10 years has been the responsibility of charter school authorizers. It's not simply a charter school that needs to reform. It's the authorizer, the public entity, that needs to hold that charter school responsible for the performance of its students. In my State of Colorado, our charter school institute approved 22 charter schools serving 10,000 students in the 6 years that we've had it. That's 22 out of about 120 charter schools that exist in the State. The State University of New York and the University of Indiana in Michigan have also approved some of those States' most successful charter schools.

Local school boards look at things in a different way sometimes. They appropriately consider their district's own financial situation when voting on charter schools. But that focus sometimes interferes with their consideration of the greater good and local control. Quiet, quality, viable public school choices for parents and students that address the diverse learning needs of their district. Unreasonable denials by school districts can be appealed in States. And that's already one of the provisions of this. But from my own experience on the State Board of Education, I know that the appeals process is really less desirable for a number of reasons. First of all, it's only reactive and only addresses the merits of whether a particular school board denial was valid or not. It's not proactive in terms of developing innovative learning models and supporting the quality, development, and authorizing practice of charter schools. Two, appeals can address school district delays in approving charter schools. There's also a way of kind of killing by delay--burying under paperwork, unreasonable request after unreasonable request from the school district to the founders of the charter school that ultimately lead to the abandonment of the idea.

Appeals are often limited in scope and criteria. And appeals are also a drain on State resources, State Board of Education members' time, Department of Education staff time, State attorney generals' time. So while they have their role, it really should be a last resort and shouldn't be prioritized as the best practice. That's why I'm proposing to add a priority for multiple charter authorizers. Again, States will be able to determine the best form that that should take.

I should also point out this is very important for rural areas and small districts. It is very, very difficult if not impossible for a small district or rural school district to be a quality authorizer. In many cases, they recognize that, and would rather not be. In fact, in Colorado, most of the districts that have welcomed the State authorizer and said for the local applicants to apply to them instead of their district are districts that know that they can't engage in a meaningful approval or oversight process. By having a Statewide entity you allow some scale to the very important business of being an authorizer--a scale that small and rural districts lack. We can empower community members in those districts with the power of school choice and charters by ensuring that there is a multiple authorizer.

This amendment is supported by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools as well as--and very important, a newer entity at the national level--the National Association for Charter School Authorizers, which is actually composed of districts and State authorizing agencies, both of whom have endorsed this amendment.

Again, it simply establishes this as a priority for funding, ensuring that this best practice that we've come to learn over the last decade can better be reflected and that hopefully States that haven't yet had the chance to look at a way to create an alternative authorizing agency will be able to learn from the States that have under this, and do so, to ensure that charter schools get a fair hearing, prevent the adversarial outcomes that too frequently come from the appeals process, and ensure that choice is given meaning in rural school districts and small school districts.

I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. I think the gentleman from New Jersey has, as he put it, good language that should not only be included in this bill, but I think in other relevant construction bills as well.

Very simply, it encourages the Secretary to give priority to States that encourage green building practices and certification. Again, that could be as simple as a State making sure that those options are available. Other States have tax credits or other methods of incentivizing green school development.

When we are talking about our national energy policy, we are talking about how frustrated our constituents are with gas prices; we're talking about our national security as a Nation and our energy security. I think that for this Congress to ensure that in every bill, large and small, we encourage--again, without any mandate to school districts, without any requirement, but encourage the Secretary to give priority to States that have at least some system for encouraging green school building development, I think this is a good thing to start right here in a small way, in a bill that certainly won't on its own turn around the energy future of our country, but on its own does have the potential to help drive scale of green technology without compromising educational outcomes.

Again, I think this is an appropriate addition to the bill and will hopefully lead to improvements of energy efficiency in charter schools across the country.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source