jonetta rose barras: Transparent privilege at the DC Council
Don’t expect the DC Council to hold charters to the same transparency and sunshine standards as traditional public schools. That was the unmistakable message I heard telegraphed last week by Council Chairman Phil Mendelson and at-large member David Grosso, chairs of the two committees with oversight of education, during a public hearing focused on the Public School Transparency Act.
The proposed legislation was introduced by Ward 6 Council member Charles Allen along with Anita Bonds (at-large), Elissa Silverman (at-large), Brianne Nadeau (Ward 1) and Mary Cheh (Ward 3). Among other things, the bill, as introduced, would mandate that charter schools comply with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and DC Open Meetings Act. As many as 39 states have imposed similar transparency demands on their charter schools.
Despite that fact, it appears Mendelson, Grosso and even the bill’s prime introducer may be acquiescing to the powerful and influential charter lobby; charter leaders and others, including a representative from the Federal City Council, argued strongly against passage of the bill, particularly the FOIA mandate, asserting that it would be too costly and too time-consuming.
A spokesperson for Grosso said he appreciated testimony for “both the desire for more public information and the practical considerations of implementation.” Speaking earlier this week at his monthly legislative press briefing, Mendelson said that the council has to “find the right balance to give the public, particularly parents, the information they need and deserve while being careful not to impose burdens on schools, particularly small charter schools.”
Council member Allen, in an email sent through his spokesperson, asserted: “When it comes to basic rights, we don’t decline to uphold them because it’s hard or costly. We do it because it’s our responsibility to one another in a democratic society, and the right to public information is no different. Sunshine begets sunshine — open government laws inherently lead to greater efforts to provide more access and information on the front end.”
Sounds good, right?
Then, Allen added this: “The hearing also showed that we should think carefully about the best way to implement transparency requirements, like FOIA compliance, for public charter schools.”
It’s troubling when lawmakers lack the stamina for consistent fidelity to a global standard of ethics and integrity. Council members have not performed rigorous oversight of the charter sector — although as much as $800 million of taxpayers’ money is going to finance the DC Public Charter School Board (PCSB) and 123 charter schools where 43,911 students are enrolled.
There is an extremely strong argument for increasing oversight and imposing uniform standards across both public education sectors. Certainly, there has been growing dissatisfaction with charter schools among some parents. A small but measurable indication of that unhappiness is the 1 percentage point enrollment decline between the 2017-18 school year and the 2018-19 school year. Figures aren’t available yet for the current school year.
Parents, education advocates and others have complained about being unable to observe the meetings of boards of directors for some schools, and about their voices getting shut out of the operation. (It’s worth noting that none of the current charter school board members live in wards 4, 5 or 8, according to the PCSB website.)
There’s also been criticism from parents about a lack of access to information on teachers’ salaries, policy development and enforcement, particularly related to public safety measures. More than 500 individuals have signed an online petition hosted by coworker.org indicating their support for greater transparency.
Speaking at the Oct. 2 public hearing, Tom Sussman, president of the DC Open Government Coalition, urged passage of Allen’s legislation. “Transparency laws bring greater accountability to the institutions to which they apply, generating higher levels of public trust and enhanced public understanding of how tax dollars are spent,” he said.
“These laws reduce corruption, mismanagement and waste,” Sussman added.
Unsurprisingly Scott Pearson, the charter board’s executive director, called FOIA a “blunt instrument” that won’t provide families “with the information they need and want while having the potential … to take resources away from the school quality goals we all share.”
Currently the charter board is required to comply with FOIA. Pearson has complained, however, that requests have increased and are becoming much broader; he compared those to fishing expeditions.
Perhaps his true motivation for opposing the imposition of FOIA on schools was captured elsewhere in his testimony: “The harmful effects of FOIA go beyond the trouble of searching and reviewing documents and emails,” Pearson said. “As members and staff of the council know only too well, the presence of FOIA inhibits free and open electronic communication. This makes decision-makers less able to engage in the kind of open electronic communication that allows organizations to operate at peak performance.”
Why does he oppose release of emails? What does he have to hide? Moreover, wasn’t it only through access to emails obtained under FOIA that media organizations, including the District Dig and The Washington Post, were able to report on ethics violations by Ward 2 Council member Jack Evans?
In the past year, I wrote about two charter school board emails that were discovered during a lawsuit against the SEED Public Charter School of Washington, DC, and SEED Foundation, filed on behalf of the estate of Stormiyah Denson-Jackson and her mother Patricia Denson. Stormiyah was a 12-year-old student at the Ward 7 boarding school when she took her own life. In both emails, Pearson acknowledged that he actively advised charter school leadership to ignore legitimate local laws, including the Youth Suicide Prevention Act.
William J. Lightfoot, of May and Lightfoot LLP, one of the law firms handling the lawsuit, testified at last week’s hearing. “We cannot have transparency without accountability,” he said, “and there is no accountability of the Charter School Board.”
Lightfoot noted the emails and offered that Pearson’s “blatant disregard for [the council’s] authority to pass laws goes to the very core of the effectiveness of the legislation. If the charter school board does not recognize your authority to pass laws, then this bill will not be implemented.”
In the past charter leaders have challenged the council’s authority to impose laws affecting them. They asserted that the School Reform Act is a federal law that governs their creation and operation. However, earlier this year an appeals court ruled that, in fact, the charters come under the District and thus are subject to District laws.
None of that means anything unless council members strengthen their backbones. Appallingly neither Grosso nor Mendelson called Pearson out for the two emails in which he advocated ignoring the law. Nor did they take issue with his request to install a wall between charters and the public that would prevent access to emails.
If Pearson has his way, he will continue putting District children in harm’s way without parents having a fighting chance through FOIA to create a proactive line of defense.
This post has been updated to correct the name of the legislation.
jonetta rose barras is a DC-based freelance writer and host of The Barras Report television show. She can be reached at thebarrasreport@gmail.com.
Comments are closed.