This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-263 
entitled 'District of Columbia Charter Schools: Criteria for Awarding 
School Buildings to Charter Schools Needs Additional Transparency' 
which was released on March 9, 2011. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

March 2011: 

District of Columbia Charter Schools: 

Criteria for Awarding School Buildings to Charter Schools Needs 
Additional Transparency: 

GAO-11-263: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-11-263, a report to congressional committees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

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. 

What GAO Found: 

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. 

What GAO Recommends: 

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. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-263] or key 
components. For more information, contact George A. Scott at (202) 512-
7215 or scottg@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Although PCSB Operates as an Independent Agency, It Is Subject to 
Performance Hearings and Financial Oversight: 

PCSB Implemented a New Accountability System to Monitor Charter 
Schools: 

Charter Schools Receive Funding and Other Resources for Their 
Operations and Facilities: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: D.C. Charter School Characteristics: 

Appendix II: Description of Academic and Nonacademic Components of the 
Performance Management Framework as of December 2010: 

Appendix III: Comments from Public Charter School Board: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the District of Columbia Mayor's Office: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: PCSB Revenue and Costs, Fiscal Years 2007-2010: 

Table 2: Local Funding by Grade Level, Special Education Add-on, and 
Limited English Proficient Add-on for Charter Schools and DCPS, 2009- 
2010: 

Table 3: Characteristics of D.C. Charter Schools Open as of September 
2010: 

Table 4: D.C. Charter Schools Closed as of September 2010: 

Table 5: Description/Status of Academic Components of the Performance 
Management Framework: 

Table 6: Description/Status of Nonacademic Components of the 
Performance Management Framework: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: D.C. Public Schools Governance Structure: 

Figure 2: D.C. Offices with Responsibilities for Reviewing the 
Operations of PCSB: 

Figure 3: Overview of PMF: 

Figure 4: Process for Making Former D.C. School Facilities Available 
to Charter Schools: 

Figure 5: Current or Planned Use of 52 Former School Buildings, as of 
December 2010: 

Abbreviations: 

BOE: Board of Education: 

D.C.: District of Columbia: 

DCPS: District of Columbia Public Schools: 

DMPED: Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development: 

DRES: Department of Real Estate Services: 

ESEA: Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965: 

IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: 

LEA: local educational agency: 

OAG: Office of the Attorney General: 

OCFO: Office of the Chief Financial Officer: 

OSSE: Office of the State Superintendent for Education: 

PCSB: Public Charter School Board: 

PMF: Performance Management Framework: 

PreK: Prekindergarten: 

RFO: Request for Offers: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

March 9, 2011: 

The Honorable Richard J. Durbin: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Jerry Moran: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Jo Ann Emerson: 
Chairwoman: 
The Honorable José E. Serrano: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
House of Representatives: 

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).[Footnote 1] 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.[Footnote 2] 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. 

Background: 

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),[Footnote 3] creating 
PCSB as a chartering authority.[Footnote 4] 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.[Footnote 5] 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). 

Table 1: PCSB Revenue and Costs, Fiscal Years 2007-2010: 

Revenue: 

Local funds: 
2007: $1,225,000; 
2008: $1,718,630; 
2009: $1,660,277; 
2010[A]: $1,556,139. 

Administrative fees from schools: 
2007: $1,053,806; 
2008: $1,487,882; 
2009: $1,828,073; 
2010[A]: $1,956,946. 

Other revenue: 
2007: $68,925; 
2008: $157,213; 
2009: $1,622,694; 
2010[A]: $2,401,057[B]. 

Total revenue: 
2007: $2,347,731; 
2008: $3,363,725; 
2009: $5,111,043; 
2010[A]: $5,914,143. 

Costs: 

Personnel costs: 
2007: $1,053,929; 
2008: $1,677,888; 
2009: $1,907,490; 
2010[A]: $2,240,267. 

Program-related costs: 
2007: $556,320; 
2008: $1,412,047; 
2009: $2,485,517; 
2010[A]: $2,516,616. 

Facilities-related costs: 
2007: $255,150; 
2008: $307,166; 
2009: $355,422; 
2010[A]: $367,432. 

Other costs: 
2007: $193,332; 
2008: $255,402; 
2009: $293,249; 
2010[A]: $425,595. 

Total costs: 
2007: $2,058,731; 
2008: $3,652,503[C]; 
2009: $3,874,854; 
2010[A]: $5,549,911. 

Source: PCSB Annual Reports and Data. 

[A] As of January 2011, PCSB had not finalized its 2010 financial 
analyses. According to an agency official, PCSB will finalize these 
analyses during the first quarter of calendar year 2011. 

[B] "Other revenue" includes local, state, federal, and private grants 
as well as sponsorship income. The projected increase in other revenue 
in 2010 includes the release of previously restricted private grant 
funds. 

[C] In 2008 when total costs exceeded total revenue, PCSB covered the 
shortfall using previously accumulated net assets, according to a PCSB 
official. 

[End of table] 

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.[Footnote 6] 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. 
[Footnote 7] 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.[Footnote 8] 
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.[Footnote 9] 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. 

Although PCSB Operates as an Independent Agency, It Is Subject to 
Performance Hearings and Financial Oversight: 

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. 

Figure 1: D.C. Public Schools Governance Structure: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Mayor: 

* Department of Education: 
Headed by Deputy Mayor. 

* Office of the State Superintendent of Education: 
Oversight, monitoring, and technical assistance to DCPS and charter 
schools for federal and state education programs. 

* District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS): 
Headed by Chancellor. 

Public Charter School Board (PCSB): 

* PCSB staff: 
Implement policies established by Board and handle day-to-day 
oversight activities. 

* Office of the State Superintendent of Education: 
Oversight, monitoring, and technical assistance to DCPS and charter 
schools for federal and state education programs. 

* D.C. Public Charter Schools. 

Source: GAO analysis of D.C. government structure. 

[End of figure] 

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.[Footnote 10] In 
preparation for these hearings, the Committee generally requests 
information from PCSB on the following: 

* agency organization; 

* personnel; 

* 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;[Footnote 11] 

* 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. 

Figure 2: D.C. Offices with Responsibilities for Reviewing the 
Operations of PCSB: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

PCBS: 

Responsibilities for Reviewing the Operations of PCSB: 

D.C. Council: 
Holds annual hearings to examine PCSB’s spending and performance. 

D.C. Office of Campaign Finance: 
Monitors and enforces PCSB’s members’ compliance with D.C. standards 
of conduct and conflict of interest laws; may conduct investigations 
or audits of PCSB’s members’ activities as they relate to the 
District’s campaign finance laws. 

D.C. Chief Financial Officer: 
Conducts financial oversight and may conduct audits of PCSB’s 
activities. 

D.C. Inspector General: 
May conduct investigations or audits of PCSB’s activities. 

D.C. Auditor: 
May conduct investigations or audits of PCSB’s activities. 

Source: GAO rendition based on review of agency documents and 
interviews with agency officials. 

Note: Some of these offices also have responsibilities related to 
charter schools in the District. The Office of the Chief Financial 
Officer distributes local funds to charter schools and may conduct 
financial audits upon referral from individuals or agency officials. 
The Inspector General and Auditor may investigate potential fraud and 
abuse in charter schools upon referral from individuals or agency 
officials. 

[End of figure] 

In addition, OCFO oversees PCSB's financial management.[Footnote 12] 
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.[Footnote 13] 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. 

PCSB Implemented a New Accountability System to Monitor Charter 
Schools: 

PCSB's New Accountability System Is Currently Undergoing Revision: 

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. 

Figure 3: Overview of PMF: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Academic elements: 

Annual review: 
* Student Progress: Measurements of growth,gains, or value added; 
* Student Achievement Level: Absolute outcomes, including standardized 
state test scores; 
* Gateway/Postsecondary Readiness/Success: Outcomes aligned with key 
subject area mastery, graduation, and postsecondary success; 
* Leading Indicators: Inputs that point to future student outcomes; 
* Mission Specific Measures: Measures related to the unique school 
mission, as specified by each school independently. 

Charter schools placed into one of three categories based on results 
of annual review: 

Results of review: 
* High performers; 
* Mid performers; 
* Low performers. 

Range of PCSB responses: 
* Rewards: May include public recognition by PCSB; 
* Support: May include targeted intervention; 
* Consequences: May include additional reviews or mandatory action 
plans; 
* Charter warning. 

Nonacademic elements: 

Annual review: 
*Fiscal: Measures school's fiscal health; 
* Governance: Assesses school leadership, stability,and structure; 
* Compliance: Assesses school compliance with local and federal laws. 

Results of review: 
Charter schools may face consequences, up to and including charter 
revocation, for poor financial performance or violations of law 
discovered during governance and compliance reviews. 

Source: GAO analysis of PCSB information. 

Note: The graphic illustrates the version of the PMF as of December 
2010. The PMF is currently undergoing revisions. 

[End of figure] 

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. 

PCSB Has Recently Communicated to Charter Schools Its Plans for 
Implementing the Revised PMF for the 2010-2011 School Year: 

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. 

Charter Schools Receive Funding and Other Resources for Their 
Operations and Facilities: 

D.C. Charter Schools May Receive Local, Federal, and Private Funding 
for Their Operations and Facilities: 

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.[Footnote 14] 
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.[Footnote 15] 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.[Footnote 16] 

Table 2: Local Funding by Grade Level, Special Education Add-on, and 
Limited English Proficient Add-on for Charter Schools and DCPS, 2009- 
2010: 

Grade level/student type: Preschool; 
Per-pupil amount for all schools: $11,752; 
Charter schools: Projected enrollment: 1,422; 
Charter schools: Audited enrollment: 1,423; 
DCPS: Projected enrollment: 1,619; 
DCPS: Audited enrollment: 1,758. 

Grade level/student type: Prekindergarten; 
Per-pupil amount for all schools: $11,401; 
Charter schools: Projected enrollment: 2,176; 
Charter schools: Audited enrollment: 2,184; 
DCPS: Projected enrollment: 2,745; 
DCPS: Audited enrollment: 2,938. 

Grade level/student type: Kindergarten; 
Per-pupil amount for all schools: $11,401; 
Charter schools: Projected enrollment: 1,913; 
Charter schools: Audited enrollment: 1,913; 
DCPS: Projected enrollment: 3,334; 
DCPS: Audited enrollment: 3,273. 

Grade level/student type: Grades 1-3; 
Per-pupil amount for all schools: $8,770; 
Charter schools: Projected enrollment: 4,750; 
Charter schools: Audited enrollment: 4,757; 
DCPS: Projected enrollment: 10,597; 
DCPS: Audited enrollment: 10,125. 

Grade level/student type: Grades 4-5; 
Per-pupil amount for all schools: $8,770; 
Charter schools: Projected enrollment: 3,014; 
Charter schools: Audited enrollment: 3,016; 
DCPS: Projected enrollment: 6,301; 
DCPS: Audited enrollment: 6,320. 

Grade level/student type: Grades 6-8; 
Per-pupil amount for all schools: $9,033; 
Charter schools: Projected enrollment: 6,179; 
Charter schools: Audited enrollment: 6,184; 
DCPS: Projected enrollment: 6,958; 
DCPS: Audited enrollment: 4,805. 

Grade level/student type: Grades 9-12; 
Per-pupil amount for all schools: $10,173; 
Charter schools: Projected enrollment: 5,472; 
Charter schools: Audited enrollment: 5,865; 
DCPS: Projected enrollment: 11,683; 
DCPS: Audited enrollment: 11,567. 

Grade level/student type: Alternative student[A]; 
Per-pupil amount for all schools: $10,261; 
Charter schools: Projected enrollment: 445; 
Charter schools: Audited enrollment: 447; 
DCPS: Projected enrollment: 1,701; 
DCPS: Audited enrollment: 93. 

Grade level/student type: Special Education school[B]; 
Per-pupil amount for all schools: $10,261; 
Charter schools: Projected enrollment: 225; 
Charter schools: Audited enrollment: Data not provided; 
DCPS: Projected enrollment: 598; 
DCPS: Audited enrollment: 567. 

Grade level/student type: Adult student[C]; 
Per-pupil amount for all schools: $6,578; 
Charter schools: Projected enrollment: 1,911; 
Charter schools: Audited enrollment: 2,093; 
DCPS: Projected enrollment: 0; 
DCPS: Audited enrollment: 982. 

Grade level/student type: Total; 
Charter schools: Projected enrollment: 27,507; 
Charter schools: Audited enrollment: 28,107; 
DCPS: Projected enrollment: 45,536; 
DCPS: Audited enrollment: 42,428. 

Special Education add-on[D]: 8 hours or less of special education 
services; 
Per-pupil amount for all schools: $4,560; 
Charter schools: Projected enrollment: 738; 
Charter schools: Audited enrollment: 738; 
DCPS: Projected enrollment: 1,349; 
DCPS: Audited enrollment: 1,443. 

Special Education add-on[D]: 9-16 hours of special education services; 
Per-pupil amount for all schools: $6,928; 
Charter schools: Projected enrollment: 1,073; 
Charter schools: Audited enrollment: 1,074; 
DCPS: Projected enrollment: 2,460; 
DCPS: Audited enrollment: 2,195. 

Special Education add-on[D]: 17-24 hours of special education services; 
Per-pupil amount for all schools: $13,681; 
Charter schools: Projected enrollment: 449; 
Charter schools: Audited enrollment: 451; 
DCPS: Projected enrollment: 914; 
DCPS: Audited enrollment: 559. 

Special Education add-on[D]: More than 24 hours of special education 
services; 
Per-pupil amount for all schools: $24,819; 
Charter schools: Projected enrollment: 559; 
Charter schools: Audited enrollment: 560; 
DCPS: Projected enrollment: 1,822; 
DCPS: Audited enrollment: 1,551. 

Special Education add-on[D]: Total; 
Charter schools: Projected enrollment: 2,819; 
Charter schools: Audited enrollment: 2,823; 
DCPS: Projected enrollment: 6,545; 
DCPS: Audited enrollment: 5,748. 

Limited English proficient add-on: 
Per-pupil amount for all schools: $3,947; 
Charter schools: Projected enrollment: 1,933; 
Charter schools: Audited enrollment: Data not provided; 
DCPS: Projected enrollment: 4,508; 
DCPS: Audited enrollment: Data not provided. 

Source: OCFO data and OSSE audit reports. 

[A] Alternative students receive specialized instruction as a result 
of being under court supervision, suspended, chronically truant, or 
expelled from a traditional school or public charter school in the 
District. 

[B] Special education schools are schools that exclusively serve 
special education students who require after-hours instruction, 
extended school year services, or residential room and board. 

[C] Adult students receive below college-level instruction as a result 
of lacking basic educational skills; a certificate of graduation from 
a secondary school; or the ability to speak, read, write, or 
understand English. 

[D] Under D.C. law, there are four levels for the special education 
add-on. The levels are defined by the number of hours per week of 
specialized services a student needs. 

[End of table] 

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.[Footnote 17] 

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.[Footnote 18] 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.[Footnote 19] 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. 

D.C. Charter Schools Have Access to Nonfinancial Resources: 

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. 
[Footnote 20] 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.[Footnote 21] 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.[Footnote 22] 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.[Footnote 23] 

Figure 4: Process for Making Former D.C. School Facilities Available 
to Charter Schools: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

1) DCPS transfers school buildings that are no longer needed to the 
Department of Real Estate Services (DRES). 

2) DRES determines if the building is needed for any other 
governmental purpose; 
If needed: go to #3; 
If not needed: go to #4. 

3) Building repurposed for other use by District[A]. 

4) Building is subject to the “Right of First Offer” process and DRES 
issues a request for offers from charter schools. 

5) Charter schools submit offers. 

6) District evaluates offers from charter schools; 
Offer approved: go to #7; 
No offers/offer rejected: go to #8. 

7) DRES negotiates a 25-year lease with a selected charter school that 
includes a 25-year renewal option. 

8) DRES may lease the building for other purposes, repurpose it for 
government use, or transfer it to the Office of the Deputy Mayor for 
Planning and Economic Development (DMPED); 
If not transferred to DMPED: go to #9; 
If transferred to DMPED: go to #10. 

9) Building repurposed for use by District or it is leased for other 
purposes. 

10) DMPED may issue a request for development proposals and select a 
project from among those offers. 

Source: GAO rendition based on interviews with agency officials and 
analysis of DRES information. 

[A] The District leased some of these buildings to charter schools. 

[B] According to DRES officials, after the right of first offer 
provision went into effect, DRES determined if any buildings were 
subject to a pre-existing lease or resolution of the D.C. Council. 
Former D.C. school buildings that were under an existing lease or 
resolution of the D.C. Council were exempt from the right of first 
offer provision and were not considered for other governmental use by 
the District. 

[End of figure] 

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. 
[Footnote 24] 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.[Footnote 25] Some former school buildings that were 
transferred to DMPED were awarded to development corporations for 
residential and retail projects.[Footnote 26] 

Figure 5: Current or Planned Use of 52 Former School Buildings, as of 
December 2010: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table] 

Subject to Right of First Offer (25 total): 
Charter School: 10 Offers accepted[A,B]; 
District Use: 1 offer rejected; 1 no offers made; 
Potential Development: 8 offers rejected; 2 no offers made' 
Other: 3 no offers made. 

Exempt from Right of First Offer[C](27 total): 
Charter School: 6; 
District Use: 18; 
Potential Development: 0; 
Other: 3. 

Offer accepted: 10 total; 
No offers made: 6 total; 
Offers rejected: 7 total. 

Source: GAO analysis of DRES information. 

[A] DRES did not receive offers on this building in response to the 
right of first offer solicitation. However, the building was awarded 
to a charter school in response to a solicitation for proposals from 
DMPED. 

[B] According to DRES, the building was occupied by a charter school 
that had an agreement with DCPS for part of the building. DRES 
determined that the existing charter school tenant qualified as a 
charter school occupying all or substantially all of the facility and 
was entitled to a right of first offer before other charter schools. 

[C] Buildings may have been exempt from the right of first offer 
provision due to a pre-existing lease, resolution of the D.C. Council, 
or governmental need by the District. 

[End of figure] 

The Basis for the District's Decisions to Reject Charter School Offers 
for Former D.C. School Buildings Is Unclear: 

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.[Footnote 27] 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. 

Conclusions: 

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. 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

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. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

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 [hyperlink, 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. 

Signed by: 

George A. Scott: 
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: D.C. Charter School Characteristics: 

Table 3: Characteristics of D.C. Charter Schools Open as of September 
2010: 

Public charter school: Achievement Preparatory Academy; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: College-preparatory with 
focus on literacy intervention, remediation, and acceleration; 
Education levels[B]: 4-6; 
Year opened: 2008; 
Enrollment[C]: 99; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: Yes; 
Type of building(s)[E]: District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) 
colocation. 

Public charter school: Apple Tree Early Learning; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Focus on literacy skills; 
Education levels[B]: Preschool-Prekindergarten (PreK); 
Year opened: 2005; 
Enrollment[C]: 180; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: N/A; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial; 
DCPS collaboration. 

Public charter school: Arts & Technology Academy; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Arts and humanities 
education, technology education; 
Education levels[B]: Preschool-6; 
Year opened: 1999; 
Enrollment[C]: 606; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: No; 
Type of building(s)[E]: DCPS surplus. 

Public charter school: Booker T. Washington; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Career-focused school 
with emphasis on building trades; 
Education levels[B]: 9-12; 
Year opened: 1999; 
Enrollment[C]: 346; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: No; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial. 

Public charter school: Bridges; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Individualized education 
for children with and without special needs; 
Education levels[B]: Preschool-PreK; 
Year opened: 2005; 
Enrollment[C]: 85; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: N/A; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial. 

Public charter school: Capital City; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Project-based curriculum; 
Education levels[B]: PreK-10; 
Year opened: 2000; 
Enrollment[C]: 425; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: No; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial. 

Public charter school: Carlos Rosario International; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Adult education; 
Education levels[B]: Age 16-Adult; 
Year opened: 1998; 
Enrollment[C]: 1659; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: N/A; 
Type of building(s)[E]: City government. 

Public charter school: Center City; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: School culture embodies 
compassion, integrity, discipline, and accountability; 
Education levels[B]: PreK-8; 
Year opened: 2008; 
Enrollment[C]: 1212; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: No; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial. 

Public charter school: Cesar Chavez Public Charter High School; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Public policy focus; 
Education levels[B]: 6-12; 
Year opened: 1998; 
Enrollment[C]: 1383; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: No; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial. 

Public charter school: Community Academy; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Community-centered 
learning model; 
Education levels[B]: Preschool-8; 
Year opened: 1997; 
Enrollment[C]: 1579; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: No; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial; 
DCPS surplus; 
city government. 

Public charter school: D.C. Bilingual; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Bilingual education; 
Education levels[B]: Preschool-5; 
Year opened: 2004; 
Enrollment[C]: 354; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: No; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial. 

Public charter school: D.C. Preparatory Academy; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: College preparatory; 
Education levels[B]: Preschool-8; 
Year opened: 2003; 
Enrollment[C]: 845; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: Yes; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial; 
DCPS colocation. 

Public charter school: E.L. Haynes; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Math and science focus; 
Education levels[B]: PreK-7; 
Year opened: 2004; 
Enrollment[C]: 460; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: No; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial. 

Public charter school: Eagle Academy; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Individual focus, active 
learning model; 
Education levels[B]: Preschool-1; 
Year opened: 2003; 
Enrollment[C]: 441; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: N/A; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial. 

Public charter school: Early Childhood Academy; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Literacy, numeracy, and 
cognitive and social skills emphasized; 
Education levels[B]: Preschool-3; 
Year opened: 2005; 
Enrollment[C]: 225; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: No; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial. 

Public charter school: Education Strengthens Families; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Culturally sensitive 
family literacy model; 
Education levels[B]: Age 0-3, adults; 
Year opened: 2006; 
Enrollment[C]: 226; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: N/A; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial. 

Public charter school: Elsie Whitlow Stokes; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Bilingual education; 
Education levels[B]: PreK-6; 
Year opened: 1998; 
Enrollment[C]: 326; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: No; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial. 

Public charter school: Excel Academy; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: All girls' school, high 
school and college-preparatory; 
Education levels[B]: Preschool-1; 
Year opened: 2008; 
Enrollment[C]: 209; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: N/A; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial. 

Public charter school: Friendship; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Curriculum that 
emphasizes basic learning using technology; 
Education levels[B]: Preschool-12; 
Year opened: 1998; 
Enrollment[C]: 3666; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: No; 
Type of building(s)[E]: DCPS surplus; 
Commercial. 

Public charter school: Hope Community; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Broad-based cultural 
knowledge and character education; 
Education levels[B]: PreK-8; 
Year opened: 2005; 
Enrollment[C]: 662; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: No; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial. 

Public charter school: Hospitality; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: College preparatory 
school with emphasis on hospitality industry; 
Education levels[B]: 9-12; 
Year opened: 1999; 
Enrollment[C]: 174; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: No; 
Type of building(s)[E]: DCPS colocation. 

Public charter school: Howard Road Academy; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Arts and humanities 
education; 
Education levels[B]: PreK-8; 
Year opened: 2001; 
Enrollment[C]: 933; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: No; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial. 

Public charter school: Howard University Middle School of Mathematics 
and Science; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Math and science focus; 
Education levels[B]: 6-8; 
Year opened: 2005; 
Enrollment[C]: 285; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: No; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial. 

Public charter school: Hyde Leadership Academy; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: College preparatory, 
character education, and service learning; 
Education levels[B]: K-12; 
Year opened: 1999; 
Enrollment[C]: 741; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: No; 
Type of building(s)[E]: DCPS surplus. 

Public charter school: Ideal Academy; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Math, science, and 
technology focused program; 
Education levels[B]: Preschool-11; 
Year opened: 1999; 
Enrollment[C]: 385; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: No; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial; 
DCPS surplus. 

Public charter school: Imagine Southeast; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Single-sex instructional 
model that emphasizes academics, character development, community 
involvement, and student leadership; 
Education levels[B]: PreK-4; 
Year opened: 2008; 
Enrollment[C]: 321; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: No; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial. 

Public charter school: Integrated Design and Electronic Academy; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Career-focused school; 
junior ROTC program; 
Education levels[B]: 7-12; 
Year opened: 1998; 
Enrollment[C]: 468; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: No; 
Type of building(s)[E]: DCPS surplus. 

Public charter school: Knowledge is Power Program D.C., known as KIPP 
D.C.; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: College preparatory with 
extended day and year; 
Education levels[B]: PreK-1, 5-9; 
Year opened: 2001; 
Enrollment[C]: 1586; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: No; 
Type of building(s)[E]: DCPS surplus; 
DCPS collaboration. 

Public charter school: Latin American Montessori Bilingual; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Bilingual education; 
Education levels[B]: Preschool-5; 
Year opened: 2003; 
Enrollment[C]: 172; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: No; 
Type of building(s)[E]: DCPS surplus. 

Public charter school: Latin American Youth Center Youth Build; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Career-focused school 
emphasizing vocational training, employability skill building, and 
community service; 
Education levels[B]: GED Program; 
Year opened: 2005; 
Enrollment[C]: 98; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: N/A; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial. 

Public charter school: Mary McLeod Bethune; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Features foreign 
languages and the arts; 
Education levels[B]: PreK-8; 
Year opened: 2004; 
Enrollment[C]: 265; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: Yes; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial; 
DCPS colocation. 

Public charter school: Maya Angelou; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Adjudicated and at-risk 
youth; 
Education levels[B]: 6-12; 
Year opened: 1998; 
Enrollment[C]: 554; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: No; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial; 
DCPS colocation; 
DCPS collaboration. 

Public charter school: Meridian; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Features frequent 
testing and student portfolios; 
Education levels[B]: Preschool-8; 
Year opened: 1999; 
Enrollment[C]: 515; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: No; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial. 

Public charter school: National Collegiate Preparatory; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: International studies-
themed college preparatory high school; 
Education levels[B]: 9; 
Year opened: 2009; 
Enrollment[C]: 84; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: N/A; 
Type of building(s)[E]: DCPS surplus. 

Public charter school: Next Step/El Proximo Paso; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Dropout prevention or 
remediation; 
Education levels[B]: GED Program; 
Year opened: 1998; 
Enrollment[C]: 110; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: N/A; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial. 

Public charter school: Nia Community; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Comprehensive 
educational services that are student-centered; 
Education levels[B]: PreK-6; 
Year opened: 2006; 
Enrollment[C]: 202; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: No; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial. 

Public charter school: Options; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Alternative learning 
environment for underachieving students using project-based approach; 
Education levels[B]: 6-11; 
Year opened: 1996; 
Enrollment[C]: 319; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: No; 
Type of building(s)[E]: DCPS surplus. 

Public charter school: Paul; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Converted public school 
focused on general academic skills and character education; 
Education levels[B]: 6-9; 
Year opened: 2000; 
Enrollment[C]: 667; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: No; 
Type of building(s)[E]: DCPS conversion. 

Public charter school: Potomac Lighthouse; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Arts focus; 
Education levels[B]: PreK-7; 
Year opened: 2005; 
Enrollment[C]: 269; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: No; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial. 

Public charter school: Roots; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Instructional emphasis 
on African heritage and culture; 
Education levels[B]: PreK-8; 
Year opened: 1999; 
Enrollment[C]: 108; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: No; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial. 

Public charter school: School for Arts in Learning (SAIL); 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Arts focus for students 
with learning disabilities; 
Education levels[B]: Kindergarten-8; 
Year opened: 1998; 
Enrollment[C]: 166; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: No; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial. 

Public charter school: The School for Educational Evolution and 
Development of Washington, known as the SEED School of Washington; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Boarding school; 
Education levels[B]: 6-12; 
Year opened: 1998; 
Enrollment[C]: 337; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: No; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial. 

Public charter school: Septima Clark; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: All-boys college 
preparatory program; 
Education levels[B]: Preschool-3; 
Year opened: 2006; 
Enrollment[C]: 133; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: N/A; 
Type of building(s)[E]: DCPS colocation. 

Public charter school: St. Coletta Special Education; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Serves students with 
cognitive disabilities and their families; 
Education levels[B]: Ages 3-22; 
Year opened: 2006; 
Enrollment[C]: 225; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: Yes; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial. 

Public charter school: Thea Bowman; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Preparatory environment 
that responds to the academic, physical, social, and emotional changes 
taking place in each child; 
Education levels[B]: 5-7; 
Year opened: 2008; 
Enrollment[C]: 94; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: No; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial. 

Public charter school: Thurgood Marshall Academy; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Law-related focus; 
Education levels[B]: 9-12; 
Year opened: 2001; 
Enrollment[C]: 389; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: No; 
Type of building(s)[E]: DCPS surplus. 

Public charter school: Tree of Life; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Emphasizes literacy 
skills for students performing below grade level; 
Education levels[B]: PreK-8; 
Year opened: 2000; 
Enrollment[C]: 266; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: No; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial. 

Public charter school: Two Rivers; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Project-based curriculum; 
Education levels[B]: Preschool-8; 
Year opened: 2004; 
Enrollment[C]: 415; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: No; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial. 

Public charter school: Washington Latin; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Classical education; 
Education levels[B]: 5-10; 
Year opened: 2006; 
Enrollment[C]: 432; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: No; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial. 

Public charter school: Washington Math, Science & Technology; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Math and science focus; 
ROTC program; 
Education levels[B]: 9-12; 
Year opened: 1998; 
Enrollment[C]: 368; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: No; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial. 

Public charter school: Washington Yu Ying; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Combines Chinese 
language immersion with an inquiry-based curricula; 
Education levels[B]: PreK-2; 
Year opened: 2008; 
Enrollment[C]: 198; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: N/A; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial. 

Public charter school: William E. Doar, Jr. Public Charter School for 
the Performing Arts; 
Mission, curriculum,[A] or target population: Performing arts focus; 
Education levels[B]: Preschool-12; 
Year opened: 2004; 
Enrollment[C]: 644; 
Made adequate yearly progress (AYP)[D]: Yes; 
Type of building(s)[E]: Commercial. 

Source: GAO analysis of charter school information and PCSB documents. 

[A] An individual school's curriculum may combine elements from 
several sources; for the schools shown, the table highlights one or 
more aspects of the curriculum. 

[B] Reflects grade levels served in during the 2009-2010 school year. 
Individual schools' charters may allow schools to gradually add grades 
over time. 

[C] Reflects actual enrollment as of 2009-10. 

[D] 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. 

[E] 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. 

[End of table] 

Table 4: D.C. Charter Schools Closed as of September 2010: 

School: Academia Bilingue de la Communidad; 
Year opened: 2005; 
Year closed: 2009; 
Reason for revocation or relinquish of charter: Relinquished due to 
low enrollment leading to financial insolvency. 

School: Academy for Learning Through the Arts; 
Year opened: 2005; 
Year closed: 2010; 
Reason for revocation or relinquish of charter: Voluntarily 
relinquished charter. 

School: Associates for Renewal in Education; 
Year opened: 1998; 
Year closed: 2003; 
Reason for revocation or relinquish of charter: Voluntarily 
relinquished charter due to issues surrounding effectiveness of 
special education program. 

School: Barbara Jordan; 
Year opened: 2002; 
Year closed: 2009; 
Reason for revocation or relinquish of charter: Relinquished due to 
low enrollment leading to financial insolvency. 

School: Children's Studio; 
Year opened: 1997; 
Year closed: 2010; 
Reason for revocation or relinquish of charter: Voluntarily 
relinquished charter. 

School: City Collegiate; 
Year opened: 2006; 
Year closed: 2010; 
Reason for revocation or relinquish of charter: Relinquished due to 
low enrollment. 

School: City Lights; 
Year opened: 2005; 
Year closed: 2009; 
Reason for revocation or relinquish of charter: Relinquished due to 
financial and management deficiencies. 

School: Hope Academy; 
Year opened: 2007; 
Year closed: 2007; 
Reason for revocation or relinquish of charter: Relinquished due to 
low enrollment and subsequent financial deficiencies. 

School: Jos-Arz; 
Year opened: 2000; 
Year closed: 2005; 
Reason for revocation or relinquish of charter: Voluntarily 
surrendered charter after 5-year review resulted in a 180-day 
probationary period. 

School: Kamit; 
Year opened: 2000; 
Year closed: 2010; 
Reason for revocation or relinquish of charter: Revoked for academic 
reasons. 

School: Marcus Garvey; 
Year opened: 1996; 
Year closed: 1998; 
Reason for revocation or relinquish of charter: Revoked due to 
management deficiencies. 

School: Meld Evenstart; 
Year opened: 2007; 
Year closed: 2009; 
Reason for revocation or relinquish of charter: Revoked for academic, 
governance, and financial reasons. 

School: New School for Enterprise and Development; 
Year opened: 2000; 
Year closed: 2006; 
Reason for revocation or relinquish of charter: Revoked due to failure 
to meet academic and governance standards upon its 5-year review. 

School: New Vistas; 
Year opened: 1999; 
Year closed: 2001; 
Reason for revocation or relinquish of charter: Revoked due to 
financial and management deficiencies. 

School: Richard Milburn; 
Year opened: 1998; 
Year closed: 2002; 
Reason for revocation or relinquish of charter: Revoked due to 
financial and management deficiencies. 

School: Sasha Bruce; 
Year opened: 2001; 
Year closed: 2006; 
Reason for revocation or relinquish of charter: Revoked due to 
financial and management deficiencies. 

School: SouthEast Academy; 
Year opened: 1999; 
Year closed: 2005; 
Reason for revocation or relinquish of charter: Revoked due to failure 
to meet academic and governance standards upon its 5-year review. 

School: Techworld; 
Year opened: 1998; 
Year closed: 2002; 
Reason for revocation or relinquish of charter: Revoked due to 
financial and management deficiencies. 

School: Tri Community; 
Year opened: 2002; 
Year closed: 2008; 
Reason for revocation or relinquish of charter: Voluntarily 
relinquished charter after Public Charter School Board (PCSB) 
initiated revocation process due to academic and governance 
deficiencies. 

School: Village Learning Center; 
Year opened: 1998; 
Year closed: 2004; 
Reason for revocation or relinquish of charter: Revoked due to 
financial and management deficiencies. 

School: Washington Academy; 
Year opened: 2005; 
Year closed: 2008; 
Reason for revocation or relinquish of charter: Relinquished due to 
financial and management deficiencies. 

School: World; 
Year opened: 1998; 
Year closed: 2002; 
Reason for revocation or relinquish of charter: Revoked due to 
financial and management deficiencies. 

School: Young America Works; 
Year opened: 2004; 
Year closed: 2010; 
Reason for revocation or relinquish of charter: Revoked due to 
financial, academic, and management deficiencies. 

School: Young Technocrats; 
Year opened: 1998; 
Year closed: 1999; 
Reason for revocation or relinquish of charter: Revoked due to 
financial and management deficiencies. 

Source: PCSB documents. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Description of Academic and Nonacademic Components of the 
Performance Management Framework as of December 2010: 

Table 5: Description/Status of Academic Components of the Performance 
Management Framework: 

PMF component: Student Progress; 
Measurements of growth, gains, or value added; 
Standard schools: Elementary: Using state test scores, predicts 
whether a student will score at the proficient or advanced level in 
the future; 
Standard schools: Middle: Using state test scores, predicts whether a 
student will score at the proficient or advanced level in the future; 
Standard schools: High: Under development for the 2009-2010 school 
year and will be included in the 2010-2011 school year; 
Nonstandard schools: Early Childhood: Under development and will be 
piloted in 2011-2012 school year; 
Nonstandard schools: Adult: Under development and will be piloted in 
2011-2012 school year; 
Nonstandard schools: Special Education: Under development and will be 
piloted in 2011-2012 school year. 

PMF component: Student achievement level; 
Absolute outcomes, including standardized state test scores; 
Standard schools: Elementary: Percentage of students who scored 
proficient or advanced on state test scores; 
Standard schools: Middle: Percentage of students who scored proficient 
or advanced on state test score; 
Standard schools: High: Percentage of students who scored proficient 
or advanced on the state test and advanced placement tests; 
Nonstandard schools: Early Childhood: Under development and will be 
piloted in 2011-2012 school year; 
Nonstandard schools: Adult: Under development and will be piloted in 
2011-2012 school year; 
Nonstandard schools: Special Education: Under development and will be 
piloted in 2011-2012 school year. 

PMF component: Gateway/postsecondary readiness/success; 
Outcomes aligned with key subject area mastery, graduation, and 
postsecondary success; 
Standard schools: Elementary: Percentage of third graders who scored 
proficient on reading portion of the state test or an alternative 
assessment; 
Standard schools: Middle: Percentage of eighth graders who scored 
proficient on math portion of the state test or an alternative 
assessment; 
Standard schools: High: Graduation rates, PSAT and SAT performance, 
and college acceptance rates; 
Nonstandard schools: Early Childhood: Under development and will be 
piloted in 2011-2012 school year; 
Nonstandard schools: Adult: Under development and will be piloted in 
2011-2012 school year; 
Nonstandard schools: Special Education: Under development and will be 
piloted in 2011-2012 school year. 

PMF component: Leading indicators; 
Inputs that point to future student outcomes; 
Standard schools: Elementary: Attendance and re-enrollment; 
Standard schools: Middle: Attendance and re-enrollment; 
Standard schools: High: Attendance, re-enrollment, and ninth grade 
credits; 
Nonstandard schools: Early Childhood: Under development and will be 
piloted in 2011-2012 school year; 
Nonstandard schools: Adult: Under development and will be piloted in 
2011-2012 school year; 
Nonstandard schools: Special Education: Under development and will be 
piloted in 2011-2012 school year. 

PMF component: Mission-specific measures; 
Measures related to the unique school mission, specified by each 
school independently; 
Standard schools: Elementary: Under development in 2010-2011 school 
year and will be piloted in 2011-2012 school year; 
Standard schools: Middle: Under development in 2010-2011 school year 
and will be piloted in 2011-2012 school year; 
Standard schools: High: Under development in 2010-2011 school year and 
will be piloted in 2011-2012 school year; 
Nonstandard schools: Early Childhood: Under development and will be 
piloted in 2011-2012 school year; 
Nonstandard schools: Adult: Under development and will be piloted in 
2011-2012 school year; 
Nonstandard schools: Special Education: Under development and will be 
piloted in 2011-2012 school year. 

Source: GAO analysis of PCSB documents. 

[End of table] 

Table 6: Description/Status of Nonacademic Components of the 
Performance Management Framework: 

PMF component: Finance; Measures schools' fiscal health; 
Description: Review of audited and unaudited financial reports, 
budgets, and financial analyses. 

PMF component: Governance; Assesses school leadership, stability, and 
structure; 
Description: Review of board minutes, annual reports, and other 
documents; Under review by Public Charter School Board (PCSB). 

PMF component: Compliance; Assesses compliance with local and federal 
laws; 
Description: Review of operational certificates and licenses, student 
and teacher handbooks, and other documents related to compliance with 
local and federal laws, including the School Reform Act and the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act; Under review by PCSB. 

Source: GAO analysis of PCSB documents. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Comments from Public Charter School Board: 

District of Columbia: 
Public Charter School Board: 
3333 14th St., NW, Suite 210: 
Washington, DC 20010: 
Office 202-320-2660: 
Fax 202-320-2651: 
[hyperlink, http://www.dcpublicchartor.com] 

February 15, 2011: 

Mr. George A. Scott: 
Director: 
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 
U. S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Scott: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review the February 2011 draft 
report, "DC Charter Schools: Criteria for Awarding School Buildings to 
Charter Schools Needs Additional Transparency" (GAO —11-263). I am 
pleased to respond on behalf of the DC Public Charter School Board 
(PCSB). 

The District of Columbia is today one of the most dynamic charter 
school venues in the country. The PCSB contributes to the sector's 
success through a rigorous application review process and effective 
monitoring and oversight. Included in the PCSB's oversight function is 
the responsibility of making decisions about closing poor performing 
charter schools. Poor performance in the academic, financial or legal 
compliance context can lead to revocation of a school's charter, 
resulting in closure. Therefore, we see the need for the report to 
clarify that school closures resulting from fiscal mismanagement have 
been the direct result of PCSB's diligent monitoring of the charter 
schools' performance. 

In addition, we note that public charter schools occupy a central 
position in education reform in the Nation's Capital, and access to 
viable and well-suited school facilities remains essential to their 
mission of providing a high-quality public education for every child. 

The PCSB continues to work with the Office of the State Superintendent 
of Education, the District of Columbia Public Schools, and Mayor 
Vincent Gray's administration to close achievement gaps and raise 
academic performance. This critical mission must include maintaining a 
commitment to funding equity for all children, optimizing the use of 
educational data to guide instruction toward individual children's 
strengths and weaknesses, and working together to make the District a 
top destination for the highest-quality teachers and school 
administrators. 

As was explained in the District of Columbia's federal Race to the Top 
Phase II Application, which was awarded last year, "Under the PCSB's 
new Performance Management Framework, all DC public charter schools 
are now evaluated using common academic and non-academic measures and 
then ranked based on school outcomes. Such data help position the PCSB 
for swift intervention in underperforming schools." 

When PCSB voted last October to delay full implementation of the PMF, 
this step was taken with the ultimate goal of optimizing its 
effectiveness. Since then, we have redoubled our efforts to work with 
nationally-recognized experts in school accountability systems, 
seeking further validation for certain elements of the framework while 
also reconsidering some design elements, like the Framework's approach 
to measuring student growth. It is a top board priority to continue to 
consult with the District's charter school leaders, including the 
leaders of some of the nation's highest-performing charter schools, as 
we incorporate their own expert guidance into this important process. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Brian W. Jones: 
Chair: 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the District of Columbia Mayor's Office: 

District of Columbia Mayor's Office: 
Vincent C. Gray, Mayor: 

February 25, 2011: 

Mr. George Scott: 
Director, Education Workforce and Income Security: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 0 Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Scott: 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Government 
Accountability Office's draft report, "DC Charter Schools: Criteria 
for Awarding School Buildings to Charter Schools Needs Additional 
Transparency," dated February 2011 (GAO-11-263). 

In general, the District government concurs with the two (2) 
recommendations for executive action, found on page 24 of the draft 
report. 

Specifically, I have instructed the Deputy Mayor for Education and the 
Department of Real Estate Services (DRES) to ensure that Requests for 
Offers (RFO) clearly indicate all factors that may be considered by 
the selection panel. In addition, as noted in the draft report, the 
emergency rules have expired and DRES is currently developing 
permanent rules for introduction and adoption. 

The Administration will also ensure that charter schools are notified, 
in writing, of their opportunity to request a debriefing to discuss 
why their offers were rejected. Further, DRES has already taken steps 
to improve the selection panel's documentation of its basis for 
rejection or acceptance of oilers received from charter schools and 
will continue to identify ways to further improve the selection 
process. Improvements have included a more detailed memorandum 
documenting the selection panel's recommendation which closely follows 
the criteria listed in the RFO and provides a detailed evaluation of 
the proposal for each criterion. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to review the draft report. If 
you have any questions please feel free to contact us. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Vincent C. Gray: 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

George Scott, 202-512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

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. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Charter Schools: Education Could Do More to Assist Charter Schools 
with Applying for Discretionary Grants. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-73]. 
Washington, D.C.: November 17, 2005. 

Charter Schools: Oversight Practices in the District of Columbia. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-7]. 
Washington, D.C.: December 10, 2004. 

District of Columbia: FY 2003 Performance Report Shows Continued 
Improvements. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-899]. Washington, D.C.: September 
3, 2003. 

Public Schools: Insufficient Research to Determine Effectiveness of 
Selected Private Education Companies. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-11]. Washington, D.C.: October 29, 
2002. 

DCPS: Attorneys' Fees for Access to Special Education Opportunities. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-559R]. Washington, 
D.C.: May 22, 2002. 

District of Columbia: Performance Report Reflects Progress and 
Opportunities for Improvement. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-588]. Washington, D.C.: April 15, 
2002. 

Charter Schools: Limited Access to Facility Financing. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-00-163]. Washington, D.C.: 
September 12, 2000. 

Charter Schools: Federal Funding Available but Barriers Exist. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-98-84]. Washington, 
D.C.: April 30, 1998. 

Charter Schools: Issues Affecting Access to Federal Funds. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-HEHS-97-216]. Washington, D.C.: 
September 16, 1997. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] We interviewed officials from Elsie Whitlow Stokes Community 
Freedom Public Charter School, Hope Community Public Charter School, 
Hospitality Public Charter School, Knowledge is Power Program D.C., 
known as KIPP D.C., Public Charter School, Maya Angelou Public Charter 
School, Washington Latin Public Charter School, and Young America 
Works Public Charter School. 

[2] We limited our data collection to local operational funds 
allocated on a per-pupil basis. Local operational funds are charter 
schools' primary source of funding. 

[3] Pub. L. No. 104-134, Title II, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). 

[4] The School Reform Act also designated the D.C. Board of Education 
(BOE) as a chartering authority. However, in 2007, the D.C. Council 
passed the Public Education Reform Amendment Act of 2007 (D.C. Law 17- 
9, D.C. Code Ann. § 38-171 et seq.). This law transferred oversight 
responsibility for charter schools previously authorized by the BOE to 
PCSB, making PCSB the sole charter school authorizer in the District. 
The 2007 Act also placed D.C. public schools under the governance of 
the Mayor, moved the state education functions into a new state 
superintendent's office (Office of the State Superintendent of 
Education (OSSE)), established a separate public education facilities 
office, and created the D.C. Department of Education headed by the 
Deputy Mayor for Education. Moreover, the 2007 Act eliminated the BOE 
and created a new State Board of Education which is responsible for 
advising the State Superintendent of Education on educational matters, 
including state academic standards, polices, and regulations for 
traditional public schools, as well as charter schools. 

[5] D.C. Code §§ 38-1802.14(a)(2) and (5). Prior to D.C. Law 18-223, 
enacted in September 2010, the Mayor selected from a list of 
candidates presented to the Mayor by the U.S. Department of Education. 

[6] PCSB may revoke a charter for fiscal mismanagement, if the school 
has committed a violation of applicable laws or the terms of its 
charter, or if the school has failed to meet the student academic 
achievement goals in its charter. 

[7] In 2010, PCSB conditionally approved four new public charter 
schools. These schools must address certain conditions before they can 
be granted a charter to open in the fall of 2011. 

[8] Generally, an LEA is defined as any public authority legally 
constituted within a state for either administrative control or 
direction of public elementary schools or secondary schools in a city, 
county, township, school district, or other political subdivision of a 
state. 

[9] GAO, Charter Schools: New Charter Schools Across the Country and 
in the District of Columbia Face Similar Start-Up Challenges, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-899] (Washington, D.C.: 
Sept. 3, 2003). 

[10] In general, the D.C. Council approves the D.C. government's 
annual budget and conducts oversight of the performance of District 
agencies, boards, and commissions. The D.C. Council's Committee of the 
Whole is charged with responsibility for all matters related to public 
education, including public charter schools. 

[11] According to agency officials, PCSB is required to submit 
performance plans twice each year to the D.C. Office of the City 
Administrator that outlines its annual performance objectives and key 
indicators. 

[12] All District agencies, whether subordinate to or independent of 
the Mayor, are subject to financial oversight of OCFO. 

[13] D.C. Code Ann. § 38-1802.14(f) (2010). The School Reform Act is 
silent on the frequency of these audits. However, audits have been 
conducted annually since 1997 by Kendall, Prebola, and Jones Certified 
Public Accountants. 

[14] The per-pupil allocation for general education can increase or 
decrease from the foundation amount (base cost) of $8,770 based on the 
weights assigned to grade levels or student type. For example, 
kindergarten is assigned a weight of 1.30 and has a per-pupil 
allocation of $11,401. 

[15] Other add-on categories are summer school and residential room 
and board. 

[16] The facilities allowance for charter schools is the average per- 
pupil allowance of DCPS's approved capital budget for the most recent 
5 years. In response to concerns about the adequacy of the facilities 
allowance, a working group reviewed facilities expenditures of charter 
schools. The working group recommended an approach that would 
establish a minimum facilities allowance of $3,000 per student and use 
a new method for calculating the 5-year average of DCPS's per-pupil 
facilities funding. 

[17] D.C. law established a commission to study and report on 
revisions to the local per-pupil funding formula with regard to 
improving equity, adequacy, affordability, and transparency. In 
addition to studying and reporting on the local funding formula, the 
commission will also study and report on the kind, amount, and impact 
of payments and transfers from D.C.'s general fund to DCPS and charter 
schools, as well as in-kind services provided to DCPS and charter 
schools. Beginning in fiscal year 2012, services provided by District 
of Columbia government agencies to public schools shall be provided on 
an equal basis to the District of Columbia Public Schools and public 
charter schools. (D.C. Law 18-223, § 4061 (2010)). 

[18] We previously reported that few charter schools nationwide apply 
for federal discretionary grants, despite being potentially eligible. 
See GAO, Charter Schools: Education Could Do More to Assist Charter 
Schools with Applying for Discretionary Grants, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-89] (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 4, 
2010). 

[19] We previously issued a report on federal payments to DCPS and 
charter schools. We reported that Congress appropriated $84.6 million 
between fiscal years 2004 and 2009 and an additional $20 million in 
fiscal year 2010 to expand public charter schools. See GAO, District 
of Columbia Public Education: Agencies Have Enhanced Internal Controls 
Over Federal Payments for School Improvement, but More Consistent 
Monitoring Needed, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-16] 
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 18, 2010). 

[20] When applying for their charters, schools must decide whether to 
be considered as an LEA for purposes of IDEA, Part B and Section 504 
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. DCPS serves as the LEA for charter 
schools that do not elect this option. 

[21] D.C. Code Ann. § 38-1802.09 (2010). 

[22] Responding to a request by the Mayor's office for an 
interpretation of the statutory provision providing a right of first 
offer to charter schools, the D.C. Attorney General stated that the 
Mayor has the authority to prioritize noneducation-related 
governmental uses for former public school buildings by other D.C. 
government agencies. 

[23] Currently, charter schools may also enter into short-term leases 
or colocation agreements for underutilized space in buildings in DCPS' 
inventory that have not been transferred to DRES. According to DRES, 
D.C. law allows leases of less than 25 years for colocation agreements. 

[24] Three of the buildings that were exempt from the right of first 
offer provision due to District use are leased to charter schools 
through the District's Charter School Incubator Initiative--a public- 
private partnership that secures and finances facilities for new 
public charter schools. 

[25] Charter schools or charter school organizations may, and do, 
submit proposals in response to DMPED's solicitation. As of December 
2010, one charter school has been awarded a former D.C. school 
building through this process. 

[26] Although all 52 former D.C. school buildings have a current or 
planned use, 15 of the buildings were vacant as of December 2010. 

[27] 55 D.C. Reg. 12177 (2008). Although this emergency rule has 
expired, DRES told us they still follow this rule and are in the 
process of making it permanent. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: