Neighborhood Preference Task Force Report

3333 14
th
Street NW Suite 210 Washington, DC 20010 t 202 328-2660 f 202 328-2661
www.dcpubliccharter.com

Brian W. Jones, J.D., Chairman
bjones@dcpcsb.org
December 14, 2012

The Honorable Phil Mendelson
Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia
Committee of the Whole
1350 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 510
Washington DC 20004

Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee of the Whole:

As spelled out in the Council of the District of Columbias 2013 Budget
Support Act of 2012, I am pleased to submit the findings of the Neighborhood
Preference Task Force, which can be found in the enclosed report, Neighborhood
Preference Task Force Report for the DC City Council. The Task Force was charged
with exploring the need for neighborhood preference in DC public charter school
admissions. Neighborhood preference allows students who live near a charter
school to have preference to attend that school over students who live further away.
The 12-member task force included five government officials (or their
designees) from the Public Charter School Board, the Chairman of the Council of the
District of Columbia, the State Superintendent of Education, the Deputy Mayor for
Education, and the Chancellor of the District of Columbia Public Schools; and seven
nongovernment members, including two representatives from charter support
organizations, a representative from the education department of a national
research organization, a representative from a national charter school organization,
two charter school leaders selected by the Public Charter School Board Chair, and a
labor representative. As the Chair of the Public Charter School Board, I was
specified as the task force chair in the Act.
The task force met four times during October and November to evaluate
neighborhood preference options and analyze related data, Overall the analysis
showed that the impact of neighborhood preference would not increase the number
of, or access to, quality seats in DC public charter schools. In fact, the data found that
there could be an adverse effect on access for certain students.
As a result, after reviewing the available data, listening to public testimony,
and discussing the implications and feasibility of a neighborhood preference system,
we determined that charter school admissions should remain open to students
across the city. The task force found no need to institute neighborhood preference
for the 2013-14 school year.

Neighborhood Preference Task Force / page 2

However, the task force does support allowing charters to voluntarily offer a
time-limited preference for students in the enrollment zone of a recently closed
DCPS school when a charter school would occupy that facility More information,
analysis, and recommendations can be found with in the Neighborhood Preference
Task Force Report for the DC City Council that is enclosed.
I would like to conclude by saying that I am grateful for the time and effort
put forth by the Task Force members over these past weeks. They have worked
thoughtfully and diligently to explore this issue from many perspectives. Each
member contributed a great deal to the discussion and analysis of neighborhood
preference and I am pleased to submit the findings on their behalf.

Sincerely,

Brian Jones, JD
Chairman, DC Public Charter School Board

cc: Councilmember Yvette M. Alexander
Councilmember Marion Barry
Councilmember Anita Bonds
Councilmember Muriel Bowser
Councilmember Michael A. Brown
Councilmember David Catania
Councilmember Mary M. Cheh
Councilmember Jack Evans
Councilmember Jim Graham
Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie
Councilmember Vincent Orange
Councilmember Tommy Wells

Neighborhood Preference Task Force
Report for the DC City Council
Washington, DC

December 14, 2012

Neighborhood Preference Task Force

Brian W. Jones, Chair
Chairman
DC Public Charter School Board

Jose Alvarez
Chief of Staff, State Superintendent
Office of the State Superintendent of
Education

Robert Cane
Executive Director
Friends of Choice in Urban Schools (FOCUS)

Karen Dresden
Founder and Head of School
Capital City Public Charter School

Ramona Edelin
Executive Director
DC Association of Chartered Public Schools

Claudia Lujan
Chief of Staff, Office of the Chief Operating
Officer
DC Public Schools

Scheherazade Salimi
Senior Advisor
Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education

Nathan Saunders
President
Washington Teachers Union

Mark Schneider
Vice President for New Education Initiatives
American Institutes for Research

Renita Thukral
Vice President of Legal Affairs
National Alliance for Public Charter Schools

Beverley Wheeler
Designee
Chairman, District of Columbia Council

Shantelle Wright
Founder and Head of School
Achievement Prep Public Charter School

3
Executive Summary

The Council of the District of Columbias 2013 Budget Support Act of 2012 created a task force
to explore the need for neighborhood preference in DC public charter school admissions. Generally,
neighborhood preference allows students who live near a charter school to have preference to attend
that school over students who live further away.
The twelve-member task force included five government officials, or their designees, from the Public
Charter School Board, the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, the State Superintendent
of Education, the Deputy Mayor for Education, and the Chancellor of the District of Columbia Public
Schools; and seven nongovernment members, including two representatives from charter support
organizations, a representative from the education department of a national research organization, a
representative from a national charter school organization, two charter school leaders selected by the
Public Charter School Board Chair, and a labor representative. The Chair of the Public Charter School
Board was specified as the task force chair in the Act.
The task force explored the need for and feasibility of offering a neighborhood preference in charter
school admissions for the 2013-14 school year. The task force considered the ways in which a
neighborhood preference could be designed including:
The pros and cons of a weighted lottery, with preference based on neighborhood;
Setting aside of a certain percentage of new seats;
A geographically limited preference;
A preference based on rankings in a city-wide application process (common lottery);
An examination of models used in other jurisdictions and evaluation of their applicability to the
District; and
A definition of neighborhood for the purpose of setting boundaries in admissions, if necessary.

The task force met four times to evaluate neighborhood preference options and analyze related
data, including enrollment data, waitlist data, a charter school leader survey, and public comment.
Overall the analysis showed that the impact of neighborhood preference would not increase the number
of, or access to, quality seats in DC public charter schools. In fact, the data found that there could be an
adverse effect on access for students living in Wards 7 and 8, if precautions were not taken to prevent
limited access to schools for Ward 7 and 8 students.

After reviewing the available data, listening to public testimony, and discussing the implications and
feasibility of a neighborhood preference system, the task force determined that charter school
admissions should remain open to students across the city. The task force found no need to institute
neighborhood preference for the 2013-14 school year. However, the task force does support allowing
charters to voluntarily offer a time-limited preference for students in the enrollment zone of a recently
closed DCPS school when a charter school would occupy that facility. In addition, the task force
identified three other recommendations. One is to work to increase the number of quality seats in DC
schools. The second is to make the charter school admissions process easier for families. And finally,
building off the previous recommendation, charter schools should be encouraged to continue working
towards creating a common lottery system for admissions, which could allow for certain choices, such as
neighborhood preference. The full report details these recommendations.

4
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION 5
THE TASK FORCE AND ITS APPROACH 5
RESEARCH AND DEMAND ANALYSIS 6
APPROACHES TO NEIGHBORHOOD PREFERENCE IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS 6
DATA ANALYSIS 8
SURVEY RESULTS 9
PUBLIC COMMENT 10
ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS 10
MANDATING NEIGHBORHOOD PREFERENCE 10
ELECTIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PREFERENCE IN CLOSED BUILDINGS 11
PETITION FOR NEIGHBORHOOD PREFERENCE 11
NO NEIGHBORHOOD PREFERENCE 11
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 12
RECOMMENDATION 1: KEEP CHARTER SCHOOL ENROLLMENT OPEN 12
RECOMMENDATION 2: TIME-LIMITED PREFERENCE FOR STUDENTS IN CLOSED DCPS SCHOOLS 12
RECOMMENDATION 3: INCREASE THE NUMBER OF HIGH QUALITY SEATS 12
RECOMMENDATION 4: SIMPLIFY CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 13
RECOMMENDATION 5: A COMMON LOTTERY 13
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 13
CONCLUSION 14
APPENDIX 15
APPENDIX I: 2013 BUDGET SUPPORT ACT EXCERPT 15
APPENDIX II: MEETING 1 MINUTES 16
APPENDIX III: MEETING 1 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS 18
APPENDIX IV: MEETING 2 MINUTES 25
APPENDIX V: MEETING 2 DATA ANALYSIS 27
APPENDIX VI: SCHOOL LEADER SURVEY RESULTS 36
APPENDIX VII: MEETING 3 MINUTES 39
APPENDIX VIII: PUBLIC TESTIMONY 41
APPENDIX IX: MEETING 4 MINUTES 45

5
Introduction

The Council of the District of Columbias 2013 Budget Support Act of 2012 created a task force to
explore the need for neighborhood preference in DC public charter school admissions. Generally,
neighborhood preference allows students who live near a charter school to have preference to attend
that school over students who live further away. Charter schools currently enroll children from across
the city and conduct lotteries if applicants outnumber available spaces. Currently in DC, the only
preferences students receive for charter school enrollment are for children of founders of the charter
school and siblings who already attend that charter school. Families near the most in-demand charter
schools may not be able to enroll a child in the school if the schools available seats have been filled,
causing frustration for some.
The Task Force and Its Approach

The twelve-member task force included individuals with diverse professional expertise and
perspectives on issues related to public school enrollment and access in DC. The task force membership
was specified in the 2013 Budget Support Act (the Act, reproduced at Appendix I.) The task force
included five government officials, or their designees, from the Public Charter School Board (PCSB),
the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, the State Superintendent of Education, the
Deputy Mayor for Education, and the Chancellor of the District of Columbia Public Schools; and seven
nongovernment members, including two representatives from charter support organizations, a
representative from the education department of a national research organization, a representative
from a national charter school organization, two charter school leaders selected by the Public Charter
School Board Chair, and a labor representative. The task force chair was specified in the Act as the
Chair of the Public Charter School Board. The seven nongovernment members were chosen by the task
force chair, with the approval of the Chairman of the DC City Council.
The task force was charged with exploring the need for and feasibility of offering a neighborhood
preference in charter school admissions for the 2013-2014 school year. The task force was to consider
the various ways in which a neighborhood preference could be designed including:
The pros and cons of a weighted lottery (preference based on neighborhood);
Setting aside of a certain percentage of new seats;
A geographically limited preference;
A preference based on rankings in a city-wide application process (common lottery).

The task force was also asked to examine models that are being used in other jurisdictions and
evaluate their applicability to the District and to define neighborhood for the purpose of setting
boundaries in admissions, if necessary.

The task force met four times; all meetings were open to the public and posted on the PCSB
website. Notice of the first meeting was also posted in the DC Register, as was notice for the third
meeting - which was also posted on several other websites. The first meeting, on October 2, 2012,
consisted of introductions, a review of the task force goals and deliverables, a discussion on the purpose
of neighborhood preference, a review of preliminary data analysis, and discussion on how the task force
would like to proceed. Minutes and the preliminary analysis can be found in Appendices II and III.

6
During the second meeting, on October 18, the task force reviewed more data about charter school
enrollment and waitlists, examined the results of a school leader survey on neighborhood preference,
and discussed the purpose of neighborhood preference and whether it would resolve issues regarding
access to high-quality public education in DC. At this meeting the task force decided that it was
imperative to not impose a neighborhood preference on charter schools, but that as yet, it did not have
enough evidence to support any other recommendation without hearing more from the public. Minutes,
the data reviewed, and the results from the school leader survey can be found in Appendices IV, V, and
VI.
At the third meeting, on November 15, the task force listened to and read public comment and then
discussed a draft proposal. Minutes as well as public testimony can be found in Appendices VII and VIII.
At the fourth meeting, on November 28, the task force discussed and finalized their
recommendations to City Council. Minutes can be found in Appendix IX.
Research and Demand Analysis

The task force discussed the core issues around why DC may or may not need to create
neighborhood preference. One major concern was that neighborhood preference would not resolve the
lack of quality seats in certain DC neighborhoods, as described in the report, Quality Schools: Every Child,
Every School, Every Neighborhood
1
published by the Deputy Mayor for Education in March 2012.
Neighborhood preference would not increase the number of quality seats but simply ration them based
on the location of a students home. A second concern was that neighborhood preference could actually
limit choice for students at charter schools countering one of the primary purposes of public charter
schools.
The task force accepted that there are challenges with students enrolling in high-demand charters,
but did not necessarily equate these challenges with a need for a neighborhood preference. To
understand the issues around a neighborhood preference the task force conducted the following
analysis:
The task force first examined models of neighborhood preference that are being used in other
jurisdictions to evaluate of their applicability to DC.
The task force searched constituent logs of city council members, conducted a survey of
charter school leaders, and requested public comment. There was no record of public
request or demand for neighborhood preference recorded in the councils constituent logs.
The task force thoroughly analyzed school enrollment patterns in the District, concluding
that most charter schools already enrolled high percentages of neighborhood students, and
that citywide preferences would have a disproportionately negative impact on children from
the poorest areas of the city.
Approaches to Neighborhood Preference in Other Jurisdictions

The task force looked to jurisdictions across the country that have implemented neighborhood
preference. The task force examined the Recovery School District in New Orleans, LA; Denver Public
Schools in Denver, CO; the New York Department of Education in New York, NY; and Chicago Public
Schools in Chicago, IL.

1
http://dme.dc.gov/DC/DME/Publication%20Files/IFF_Final_Report.pdf

7
The Recovery School District. The Recovery School District (RSD) in New Orleans serves 40,000
students; 80% attend charter schools. Fifty percent of kindergarten through eighth grade seats are
reserved for neighborhood preference; this policy was the result of a long political battle.
Neighborhoods are defined by six district zones called catchment areas that previously existed and are
not political boundaries. Neighborhood is the third preference considered, accorded less weight in
admissions than sibling preference and a preference for students from closing schools. The mandate has
had minimal effect as most schools enroll approximately 70% of their students from the surrounding
neighborhoods. Additionally, the catchment areas are large and students in a neighborhood can attend
a charter school in their or a neighboring catchment area; a similar system in DC might allow for a
student preference for three or four wards, a solution that would not ease admission into the school
across the street. One initiative that does help students get matched with their preferred school is a
city-wide common lottery. The RSDs common lottery, begun in 2012, resulted in 75% of K-9

students
being matched with their first choice school and 84% being matched with one of their first three
choices.

Denver Public Schools. In Denver Public Schools (DPS), 15% of 82,000 students attend charters.
Colorado state statute requires a geographic preference, but the school districts are so large that it has
no practical effect. Each school determines its neighborhood boundaries and often only 20%-40% of
seats are reserved for in-bound students. Neighborhood preference in DPS is mandatory for
turnaround charters taking over former DPS school sites. Like the Recovery School District, DPS also
conducted a common lottery in 2012 resulting in 70% of students being matched with their first choice
school, 79% with one of their top two choices, and 83% matched with one of their top three choices.
Sixty-seven percent of students were matched with a first choice school in the same region of the city as
their home.

New York Department of Education. The task force examined the nations largest school district,
the New York Department of Education (NYCDOE). Only 4% of the citys 1.1 million students attend a
charter school. In New York City, district and charter schools are divided into 32 different community
school district zones; up to 100% of seats are reserved for students from the community school district
who have preference over other applicants after a sibling preference is implemented. At-risk students
can also be given preference, although most schools do not use this preference. In New York, charter
schools primarily serve the students from their neighborhood. However, unlike in DC, charters in New
York are given space in NYCDOE school facilities for free or at significantly reduced rates.

Chicago Public Schools. The nations third-largest school district, Chicago Public Schools (CPS),
serves 400,000 students, 12% of whom are charter students. At CPS, neighborhood preference is
determined by the authorizer or the school in conjunction with the district. The law allows up to one-
third of charters to designate attendance boundaries and reserve up to 100% of seats for students from
the community school district who would have preference over other applicants, after siblings.
However, only 12 of 110 charter schools use neighborhood preference in CPS. Neighborhood preference
in Chicago was allowed only after a long battle, which was fought both politically and within
communities.

The task force concluded that the models used in other jurisdictions are not closely applicable to DC.
DC is unique in its charter school market share and distribution of charter schools across seven of eight
wards, the relatively small size of the District, and the widespread availability of public transportation.
New Orleans, the only city with a larger percent of students attending a charter school, covers five times
the area of DC making each of its neighborhood preference enrollment zones roughly the size of the

8
DC. The other jurisdictions studied had one-third to one-tenth the share of students attending charter
schools and geographic areas that were between two and seven times that of DC. Given DCs unique
public education history and current state, the city should be cautious about implementing
neighborhood preference similar to any of the models explained above. For more information about
neighborhood preference in these jurisdictions, see the preliminary analysis in Appendix III.

Data Analysis

In addition to reviewing existing models the task force considered several data sets to
determine the need for neighborhood preference in DC. The first data set examined was enrollment
patterns in the 97 public charter schools in the 2011-12 school year. This data showed that there is a
natural tendency for students from the neighborhood to enroll at charters near them when
neighborhood was defined as either one mile from their home or within their home ward. Thirty-five
percent of public charter school students in 2011-12 went to school within one mile of their home;
forty-nine percent went to a charter school in their ward. Similarly, in 45% of all public charter schools
(44 schools), at least 50% of students come from within the ward. In 68% of public charter schools (66
schools), 40% or more of their students come from within the ward. Table 1 below shows the percent of
public charter school students that attend a school in their home ward.

Table 1.

Given the discussion around the lack of high quality seats, the task force also looked at enrollment
patterns in high-performing charter schools. The task force found that there are not enough high-
performing charter schools to serve all charter school students in DC and they are not evenly distributed
across wards. Of the 65 public charter schools that were ranked by the PCSBs 2011-12 Performance
Management Framework, only 22 were considered high-performing Tier 1 schools. Even so, at half of
the 22 Tier 1 schools, 50% or more of the student body enrolled from within the ward.

The task force conducted a simulation of how many seats each ward would gain or lose if 100% of
charter school seats were reserved for within ward students, therefore limiting enrollment from
students from the other seven wards. Students who no longer would have a seat in a ward outside their
home would need to find a seat in their home ward; the lack of seats in charter schools in their ward
could lead to students returning to DCPS neighborhood schools or seeking other options. Figure 1,
below, shows the net gain/loss for each ward.

Wards 1, 5, and 6 would gain a significant number of seats for their children, and Ward 4 would gain
some. Ward 3 is not included in the figure below since there are no charter schools in Ward 3. Students

9
from Ward 3 would not have preference at charter schools in other wards and, in the event of the 100%
preference presumed in the simulation, would need to find a seat in a non-charter school. Wards east of
the river would be most negatively impacted: students from Ward 7 would lose access to a net total of
199 seats but students from Ward 8 would lose access to a net total of 3099 seats.

Figure 1.

Survey Results

The task force also looked to both the charter school leadership and the community in DC to
determine the demand for neighborhood preference. The task force surveyed DC public charter school
leaders in October 2012; eleven school leaders responded. These respondents represented all wards
that have public charter schools with the exception of Ward 2. Seventy-three percent did not believe
that charter schools should have the option of prioritizing a students geography when determining
student enrollment. No school leaders indicated they wanted neighborhood preference. The remaining
27% marked other and wrote that they would only be comfortable with neighborhood preference if
the number of students was severely limited, or would prefer to have the option of prioritizing student
need (special education, drop out returning to school, etc.) in determining priority for enrollment. When
asked When would it be appropriate to require a neighborhood preference enrollment system? one
school leader chose if the charter was located in a low income community, one chose if the charter
stated it would serve a specific community, three chose it should be an option not a mandate, and six
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
Ward 1
Charter
Seats
Ward 2
Charter
Seats
Ward 4
Charter
Seats
Ward 5
Charter
Seats
Ward 6
Charter
Seats
Ward 7
Charter
Seats
Ward 8
Charter
Seats
Seats Gained: Additional seats in ward for students from that ward
Seats Lost: Seats outside of ward no longer available to students in each ward

10
choose it should be neither an option nor a mandate. Full results from the school leader survey can
be found in Appendix VI.

Public Comment

In November the task force published a request for public comment in writing or in person at a
public meeting. Four community members provided public comment, three in writing and one in person.
Two of these community members were parents and two were public charter school leaders. All four
opposed neighborhood preference with the exception of one school leader who suggested that schools
with a specialty may offer neighborhood preference since, due to these schools popularity with families
across the city, students living nearby may have difficulty getting in.
It should be noted that the issue raised by this school leader can be extrapolated beyond specialty
programs like language immersion schools to apply to any school where demand outnumbers supply.
Additionally, this suggestion ran counter to most of the discussion on the task force and also runs
counter to the experience at DC Public Schools, where specialty programs are open to students city-
wide. This school leader also wrote that what makes charter schools different from neighborhood
public schools is parents ability to choose which school they want their children to attend without being
limited by geography.
Analysis of Options

After gathering public comment and reviewing the data on student enrollment patterns, the task
force considered several neighborhood preference models and discussed the various ways in which a
neighborhood preference could be designed, including weighted lotteries, reserving a certain
percentage of new seats, and applying neighborhood preference only to certain types of schools.
While discussing the options the task force came to consensus on a few basic principles. Most
members agreed that charter schools are schools of choice; they were designed to be an option in
addition to neighborhood schools and function best when families have multiple options. Similarly,
charter schools are not well suited to be neighborhood schools, nor were they designed to serve that
purpose. Many charter schools attract families who share an affinity for the schools unique mission.
Lastly, charter schools were designed to be autonomous. The task force agreed that any options
considered should honor and maintain charter autonomy; any recommendations from the task force
would be voluntary for charter schools.

Mandating Neighborhood Preference

One option, to mandate neighborhood preference at all public charter schools, was rejected by
members of the task force. In New York, where charter schools primarily serve the students from their
neighborhood, charters are given space in public school buildings for free. In DC, neighborhood
preference could be challenge given the complex facilities structures for charters and the historic lack of
public buildings for charter school use. Moreover, New York covers seven times the area as DC. A
variant of this option, to create neighborhood preference only for a certain type of school, e.g.,
language-immersion, arts-focus, or elementary school, was also rejected by the task force. There was
no support for forcing a mandate on charters when there was so little evidence that DC has a need for

11
rationing seats by using neighborhood preference. Additionally, a mandate would run counter to the
idea of charter autonomy.

Elective Neighborhood Preference in Closed Buildings

In Denver and Chicago, only charter schools that act as turnaround schools in previously public
campuses are required to have a neighborhood preference. This is to ensure that students who were
previously enrolled at a failing school have access to a high-quality charter school in their neighborhood.
This option may be viable in DC given the high number of public school closures, both of charter and
DCPS schools. Currently 20 former or current DCPS facilities are being used by charters and five
additional campuses were available for Request For Offers (RFO) in 2012. DCPS has proposed to close
another 20 schools at the end of the 2012-13 school year. This proposal was released after the second
meeting of the Task Force. The task force considered allowing a charter moving into a closing DCPS
school to elect to allow neighborhood students to enroll prior to the lottery for a limited duration of
time.
Petition for Neighborhood Preference

A third option the task force discussed was that any charter school may petition the Public Charter
School Board (PCSB) for permission to implement a neighborhood preference. Such a petition would
contain the type of preference and the boundary of the proposed neighborhood. PCSB could grant
permission for such preference if it concluded that a) the preference would be educationally
advantageous to the city as a whole and b) that the proposed preference would not be harmful to
disadvantaged populations in the city. In Chicago, the law permits up to one-third of charter schools to
adopt a neighborhood preference enrollment priority and establish their own geographic preference
zone. Therefore any school that wished to serve students from a particular geographic region could do
so provided that fewer than one-third of charters had previously established such a measure. Under this
option, schools that wished to maintain open enrollment could do so, while others who wished for a
student body from a particular community could do so. Most task force members and charter school
leaders believe that charter schools are meant to serve students from across the city and allow
maximum choice for parents, and do not support neighborhood preference. In addition, allowing
neighborhood preference may limit options for students who do not live near a particular school,
meaning home location, and thus potentially socioeconomic status, could limit a childs options. The
Deputy Mayor for Education felt that allowing a charter school to opt for a neighborhood preference
should be permitted, provided that safeguards are put into place to ensure that doing so does not
adversely impact students who live in under-served neighborhoods, and that doing so actually improves
access to quality schools for such students.

No Neighborhood Preference

Another option is to remain without a neighborhood preference. At this time a majority of task force
members propose that DC does not institute a neighborhood preference and instead keep the current
state of open enrollment across the city. There was, however, support for a time-limited preference for
students in the enrollment zone of a recently closed DCPS school when a charter school occupies that
facility. Conclusions and further recommendations are below.

12

Conclusion and Recommendations

Based on the evidence the task force has reviewed to date, members have not identified a reason to
create neighborhood preference, since 35% of public charter school students go to school within one
mile of their home and 49% go to school within their ward. As stated above, the task force found no
evidence in the sources it examined of strong community demand for neighborhood preference
Moreover, the data show that if public charter schools were to limit enrollment to students in a given
charter schools neighborhood, students in Wards 7 and 8 the two wards with the greatest need for
improved access to quality public school seats would have more limited access to charter schools in
other wards unless safeguards were put into place to prevent this result.
The task force believes that while there are challenges with a lack of quality seats in certain
neighborhoods, the answer is not to create a neighborhood preference without including more
stakeholders, more conversation, and getting the right people at the table to considerer the underlying
issue of a lack of quality seats alongside the discussion of whether a neighborhood preference is
appropriate for the District. A task force with the right representation can address this larger issue that
is more critical to the current state of education in DC.

Recommendation 1: Keep Charter School Enrollment Open

A majority of task force members feel that there is no need to create neighborhood preference at
this time and that if, at a later time, the community supports or demands it and the data show a need
for it, District leaders can revisit the issue.

Recommendation 2: Time-limited Preference for Students in closed DCPS Schools
While not strictly a neighborhood preference, the city should consider allowing a charter school
that opens in the facility of a closing DCPS school to elect to give a time-limited preference in the to
students enrolled in the closing school, or who reside within the schools existing enrollment zone, by
applying to the PCSB for such preference. The objective of such a preference would be to ease the
transition for students, families and communities impacted by these closures.
Recommendation 3: Increase the Number of High Quality Seats

The city should invest in finding solutions to the insufficient number of high quality seats as this is at
the heart of the issue. This includes making it easier for high-quality schools, both charter and DCPS, to
expand. The city might wish to convene a group of experts qualified to discuss school quality tasked
with devising a proposal to allow for a high-quality seat for every student in DC. This discussion could
build off the work already conducted by the Deputy Mayor for Education, DC Public Schools, and the
Public Charter School Board. The discussion should include a widely agreed working definition of high-
quality.

13
Recommendation 4: Simplify Charter School Admissions

Charters should work to make admission more transparent and understandable. Multiple deadlines,
lotteries, and a variety of enrollment periods are confusing to families. Charter schools should be equally
accessible to all families and they should work to make the application and enrollment as simple as
possible. This year, for the first time ever, 85 of the 96 public charter schools that serve grades PK-12
have voluntarily agreed to use the same deadline for applications and the same date for their lotteries if
they receive more applications than they have open seats. Charter schools and DCPS should be
encouraged to make applying for, enrolling in, and attending a school of choice (charters, DCPS out-of-
boundary schools, and specialized schools) as simple as possible.

Recommendation 5: A Common Lottery

Using a matching system like Denver Public Schools or the New Orleans Recovery School District
would allow for more families gaining admittance to their top choice schools, including a school near
their home should proximity be a priority for them. The task force believes that a better lottery system
would allow families to prioritize neighborhood without some of the unintended consequences a
neighborhood preference system could create. The group of schools streamlining the application
process is also currently meeting to consider the practical implications of a common lottery for many or
all charter schools, or possibly for all public schools. Such systems often use sophisticated algorithms to
maximize the number of people receiving their top school choice while minimizing the ability of
participants to game the system. DCPS already has a common lottery for out-of-boundary schools and
is piloting an algorithm-based lottery for their specialized high schools, similar to the algorithm used in
Denver and New Orleans. If we believe that, among oversubscribed schools, most parents prefer a
closer school to one further away, then such a system should increase the percentage of students
attending schools closer to their homes. This would also reduce the turmoil caused by students coming
off waitlists at the beginning of the school year.

Other Considerations

Neighborhood Diversity. The task force considered how a neighborhood preference could reduce
the diversity of a schools student body, depending on the location of the school. The task force also
considered the risk that a neighborhood preference could lead families to seek to move closer to
desirable high-performing schools, driving out longer-term residents.

Logistical Concerns. The task force considered the many logistical challenges of neighborhood
preferences. How would a preference apply to a school that moves locations? Similarly, if preference
were by ward, how would it apply to schools or students located on ward boundaries, or in cases when
ward boundaries change? If preference were based on geographic proximity, how would parents know
for which schools they had a preference, and how would schools easily know which applicants should be
given a preference? Creating neighborhood preference for the 2013-14 school year would be
challenging logistically and likely cause confusion among parents and schools.

Impact on Federal Funding. Eligible DC charters can each receive up to $700,000 over three years
under the federal Charter Schools Program. This funding, administered by the Office of the State
Superintendent (OSSE), supports three-year startup grants for new charter schools and dissemination

14
grants for high-performing schools. Administrative fees from this grant support OSSEs Office of Charter
School Programs. Charter schools receiving these funds are not permitted to implement a neighborhood
preference during the period they are a grant recipient. DCs current grant runs through 2015. DC may
be disadvantaged when applying in 2015 for a grant renewal if it has a neighborhood preference in
enrollment. In addition there is a small risk that DCs current grant could be cancelled, because DC
represented that it had no neighborhood preference when it originally applied for the grant.

Conclusion

The task force considered both qualitative and quantitative sources to gauge demand for
neighborhood preference and found little demand in the sources examined, which included input from
the community, data on enrollment patterns, and input from charter school leaders. The task force
considered models from other jurisdictions and identified differences between other jurisdictions and
the District that raised concerns about importing those models to DC. The task force also felt strongly
about not infringing on charter autonomy by mandating neighborhood preference. That, combined with
the analysis of the data that showed that neighborhood preference, without appropriate safeguards,
could actually hurt students who most need access to high quality schools, lead the task force to
determine that the District should not pursue legislation for neighborhood preference at this time.
Additional analysis would be needed to determine whether demand for neighborhood preference exists,
and if so, whether there is an appropriate model for neighborhood preference that could be
implemented without adversely impacting students in underserved neighborhoods. In addition, all task
force members agreed that the District should 1) allow a time-limited preference for students in closed
DCPS schools to enroll in a charter that opens in their former school, 2) work to increase the number of
high quality seats for all students in the District, 3) increase transparency and ease around charter
school admissions, and 4) support the work of the charter schools exploring options for a common
lottery to increase the number of families who gain admittance to their preferred school.

15
Appendix

Appendix I: 2013 Budget Support Act Excerpt

SUBTITLE F. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SCHOOL REFORM AMENDMENT
Sec. 2214a. Charter schools admissions task force.
(a) There is established a task force that shall study providing a neighborhood preference in
charter school admissions for the 2013-2014 school year. The task force shall consist of:
(1) The following 5 government officials, or their designees, the:
(A) Chairman of the Public Charter School Board;
(B) Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia;
(C) State Superintendent of Education;
(D) Deputy Mayor for Education; and
(E) Chancellor of the District of Columbia Public Schools; and
(2) The following nongovernment members:
(A) Two representatives from charter support organizations;
(B) A representative from the education department of a national research
organization;
(C) A representative from a national charter school organization;
(D) Two charter school leaders selected by the Public Charter School Board
Chair; and
(E) A labor representative.
(b) The task force shall:
(1) Be chaired by the Chairman of the Public Charter School Board, or his or her
designee;
(2) Meet at an agreed to location as often as determined necessary by the Chairman of
the task force;
(3) Explore the feasibility of offering a neighborhood preference in charter school
admissions for the 2013-2014 school year; and
(4) By September 1, 2012, submit a report to the Council of its findings, which shall
include:
(A) Consideration of the various ways in which a neighborhood preference can
be designed, including:
(i) The pros and cons of a weighted lottery;
(ii) Setting aside of a certain percentage of new seats;
(iii) A geographically limited preference; and
(iv) A preference based on rankings in a city-wide application process;
(B) A definition of neighborhood for the purpose of setting boundaries in
admissions;
(C) An examination of models that are being used in other jurisdictions and
evaluation of their applicability to the District; and
(D) Recommendations based on its findings.

16

Appendix II: Meeting 1 Minutes

Neighborhood Preference Task Force Meeting Minutes
3333 14th St., NW, Suite 210
Washington, DC 20012
October 2, 2012 5:30-7:30pm

Members in attendance:
Brian W. Jones, JD, Chairman of the DC Public Charter School Board and Task Force
Beverley Wheeler, Designee of the Chairman of the District of Columbia Council
Jose Alvarez, Office of the State Superintendent of Education
Scheherazade Salimi, Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education
Claudia Lujan, DC Public Schools
Robert Cane, Friends of Choice in Urban Schools (FOCUS)
Ramona Edelin, DC Association of Public Chartered Schools
Mark Schneider, American Institutes for Research
Renita Thukral, National Alliance for Public Charter Schools
Shantelle Wright, Achievement Prep Public Charter School
Karen Dresden, Capital City Public Charter School

Mr. Jones welcomed the task force members and began the meeting with an overview of neighborhood
preference and introductions from task force members. There are specific questions to answer for the
Council in the Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Support Act of 2012 but, there isnt anything that precludes the
task force from addressing some of the larger questions.
The first question to be addressed was whether there was a need for the Neighborhood Preference Task
Force. Several members agreed that identifying what would constitute neighborhood preference for
charter schools would be in the best interest of all schools and students. One task force member
suggested that instead of rationing seats through neighborhood preference we should work to create
more high quality seats.
A presentation of data launched further discussion and probing questions: Does DC need neighborhood
preference? What problems would it solve? What unintended consequences could we create by
instituting neighborhood preference create? Why are we considering neighborhood preference?
This lead to a discussion around how neighborhood preference would limit choice for students at
charter schools, and that may not be necessary given that many schools were already enrolling high
numbers of student from nearby with a mandate for preference. It was established that the task force
could define neighborhood in the event neighborhood preference was established. A task force
member provided a summary of how DCPS operated its boundaries. DCPS has established boundaries;
however they also offer proximity preference in combination with their enrollment lottery. The Task
Force member was also willing to share the Districts list of preferences. It was noted that consideration
around transportation required some thought for secondary and high schools.

17
There was a concern by a member regarding how specialty schools would be affected by neighborhood
preference. Charter school leaders voiced that regardless of their locations, charter school provide some
unique specialties that distinguish them from one another. DCPS elaborated on their difficulty in
handling specialty programs.
Next, the task force viewed a data model showing how schools would distribute available seats if 100%
neighborhood preference were instituted. The data showed that Ward 8 students would lose out on
attending schools within the other seven wards; this was especially disturbing since many Ward 8
schools are declining in performance and possibly subject to closure.
A member of the Task Force shared his experience with establishing neighborhood preference in
Chicago, which was started by political demand. When schools were reopened as charter schools after
being closed by that district, some students who preferred to attend the new school would have the
opportunity to attend as long as they lived within the boundary. Charter schools in this case were able
to use the building of the old school and have it renovated by the city. He mentioned that there were
mistakes made in their process and there was no significant change made to enrollment patterns.

The meeting ended by collecting outstanding questions from the task force such as:
- What is the level of preference that would move students from one ward to another since a high
number of students already attend schools near their residence?
- What does the data show about the need for neighborhood preference?
- How competitive are lotteries? How competitive are lotteries for Tier 1 schools?
- What are the total number of applicants that didnt get into a school?
- What are the total number of school-aged kids by Ward?
- What is the number of available seats at charter schools?
- What do the constituent logs say about the need for neighborhood preference?

18
Appendix III: Meeting 1 Preliminary Analysis

Preliminary Findings on Student Enrollment Patterns

There is a natural tendency for students from the neighborhood to enroll at charters near them.
o Most wards already have a high percentage of students from the ward attending a
charter school in the ward:
Student Home Ward % of students that attend a PCS
within the ward
1 63.8%
2 10.6%
4 41.3%
5 50.4%
6 35.7%
7 53.1%
8 51.8%
Note: PCS Students in Ward 3 attend schools in other wards as there are no charters in
Ward 3.
35% of public charter school students go to school within one mile of their school.
49% of public charter school students go to a charter school in their ward.
Of 97 public charter schools in the 2011-2012 data set:
o 45% of all public charter schools (44 schools) have 50% of their students come from
within the ward.
o 68% of all public charter schools (66 schools) have 40% or more of their students come
from within the ward.
What about Tier 1 Schools in the District?
22 schools out of an eligible 71 were evaluated as Tier 1 schools according to the PCSBs
Performance Management Framework (PMF).
o 31% of PCS are Tier 1; 48% of PCS are Tier 2; and 21% of PCS are Tier 3.
11 of the 22 PMF Tier 1 schools had 50% or more of their students from within the ward.
There are too few Tier 1 Charter Schools and they are not evenly distributed across wards:

19

Tier 1 Public Charter Schools
School Name Ward Percent of
students within 1
mile
Percent of
students In Ward
Achievement Prep 8 48% 82%
Capital City - Lower 1 46% 42%
Capital City - Upper 1 47% 41%
Center City - Petworth 4 76% 73%
Center City - Trinidad 5 61% 54%
Cesar Chavez - Chavez Prep 1 56% 50%
Community Academy - Butler 2 25% 20%
DC Prep - Edgewood Middle 5 31% 50%
E.L. Haynes - Georgia Ave 1 42% 34%
Elsie Whitlow Stokes Community Freedom* 5 29% 49%
Howard University Math and Science 1 20% 15%
KIPP DC: AIM 8 54% 82%
KIPP DC: College Prep 8 25% 50%
KIPP DC: KEY 7 42% 64%
KIPP DC: WILL 6 38% 26%
Latin American Montessori Bilingual* 4 25% 50%
Paul Junior High 4 41% 57%
SEED** 7 20% 37%
Thurgood Marshall 8 27% 71%
Two Rivers - Elementary 6 30% 45%
Washington Latin - High 4 17% 35%
Washington Latin - Middle 4 11% 22%
* Bilingual immersion school
** Boarding school

20
What do we project would happen if a 100% ward neighborhood preference was set in place in DC?
Some wards would see a net gain of seats for their students and others would see a net loss

0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
Ward 1
Students
Ward 2
Students
Ward 4
Students
Ward 5
Students
Ward 6
Students
Ward 7
Students
Ward 8
Students
Seats Gained: Additional seats in ward for students from that ward
Seats Lost: Seats outside of ward no longer available to students in each ward
Thank you to FOCUS for the analysis of this data.

21
Some Other Considerations

1. Impact on Federal Funding.
Eligible DC charters can each receive up to $700,000 over three years under the Federal Charter Schools
Program. This funding, administered by OSSE, supports 3-year startup grants for new charter schools
and dissemination grants for high-performing schools. Administrative fees from this grant support
OSSEs Office of Charter School Programs.
Charter schools receiving these funds are not permitted to implement a neighborhood preference
during the period they are a grant recipient.
DCs grant runs through 2015. DC may be disadvantaged when applying in 2015 for a grant renewal if it
has a neighborhood preference. In addition there is a small risk that DCs current grant could be
cancelled, because DC represented that it had no neighborhood preference when it originally applied for
the grant.

2. Neighborhood Diversity
The task force may want to consider the issue of a neighborhood preference for a school located in a
neighborhood with little diversity. This could particularly be an issue were a charter school to open in
parts of Ward 3.

3. Charter Schools that Move and other Vexing Questions
The task force needs to consider how a neighborhood preference would apply to a school that moves
locations. Similarly, if preference were by ward, how would it apply to schools or students located on
ward boundaries, or in cases when ward boundaries change? If preference were based on geographic
proximity, how would parents know for which schools they had a preference, and how would schools
easily know which applicants should be given a preference?

4. Common Lottery Considerations
A group of schools is currently meeting to consider the practical implications of a common lottery for
many or all charter schools, or for all public schools. Such systems often use sophisticated algorithms to
maximize the number of people receiving their top school choice while minimizing the ability of
participants to game the system. If we believe that, among oversubscribed schools, most parents
prefer a closer school to one further away, then such a system should increase the percentage of
students attending schools closer to their homes.

22
Neighborhood Preference Systems Nationwide

Recovery School
District (RSD)
New Orleans, LA
Denver Public
Schools (DPS)
Denver, CO
New York Dept. of
Education
(NYCDOE)
New York, NY
Chicago Public
Schools (CPS)
Chicago, IL
District Demographics
Schools 66 schools total
50 charter
162 schools total
30 charter
1,700 schools total
136 charter
690 schools total
110 charter
Students
Served
40,000
80% of students
attend charters
82,000
15% of students
attend charters
1,100,000
4% of students
attend charters
400,000
12% of students
attend charters
History RSD is an
intervention school
district designed to
turn around low
performing schools.
Created in 2003 by
the Louisiana
Department of
Education, it is run
by the State Board
of Elementary and
Secondary
Education (BESE).
DPS is the only
public school
district in the city
and county of
Denver. 68% of
students are FRL,
58% are Hispanic,
and 15% are
African American.
NYCDOE is the
nations largest
school district. It is
led by the
chancellor, who is
appointed by the
mayor. Charter and
public school
attendance is
bound by 32
community school
districts.
CPS is the third-
largest school
district in the
country. It is led by
the CEO of CPS and
the members of the
Board of Education,
all of whom are
appointed by the
mayor. 44% of
students are
Hispanic and 41%
are African
American.

23

Recovery School
District (RSD)
New Orleans, LA
Denver Public
Schools (DPS)
Denver, CO
New York Dept. of
Education (NYCDOE)
New York, NY
Chicago Public
Schools (CPS)
Chicago, IL
Preference System Features
Neighborhood
definition
Six district zones
called catchment
areas
Determined by
each school
32 different
community school
district zones
Determined by the
authorizer or the
school in
conjunction with
the district.
Law allows up to
one-third of
charters to
designate
attendance
boundaries.
Approx. 12 schools
do.
Seats
Reserved
50% Determined by
each school;
thought of as a
floor, often only
20%-40% of seats
are reserved
Up to 100% of seats.
Students from the
community school
district always have
preference over
other applicants.
Up to 100% of
seats. Students
from the
community school
district always have
preference over
other applicants.
Neighborhood
Preference
Restrictions
-K-8 only
-Mandatory that
all schools use
neighborhood
preference
-Neighborhood is
third in
preference rank
following siblings
and students from
closing schools
- Result of a long
political battle
- The mandate has
minimal effect as
most schools
enrolled
approximately
70% of their
students from the
surrounding
neighborhoods.
-Neighborhood
preference
mandatory for
turnaround
charters taking
over former DPS
school sites
- Colorado statute
requires a
geographic
preference, but
the school
districts are so
large that it has
no practical effect
-At-risk students
are also given
preference.
-Students living in the
community school
district have priority
immediately after
siblings, some
schools choose to
use at-risk as a
third but most do not
-Students living in
the enrollment
zone have priority
immediately after
siblings
-3 schools
volunteered for
neighborhood
preference, and 9
have it as a part of
their charter
authorization

24

First Common Lottery
Recovery School District (RSD)
New Orleans, LA
Denver Public Schools (DPS)
Denver, CO
Held April 2012 April 2012
Participating 28,000 22,737
Parent Process Rank top 8 schools (average 2.5
ranked)
Rank top 5 choices (average 2.8 ranked)
Results 75% of K/9
th
matched with their 1
st

choice
84% got one of their first three
choices
Results slightly lower for other grade
transfers
70% matched with their 1
st
choice
79% with top or second choice
83% matched with top three
67% of students had first choice school that
was in the same region of the city as their
home

25
Appendix IV: Meeting 2 Minutes

3333 14
th
St., NW, Suite 210
October 2, 2012 5:30pm

Chairman of the DC Public Charter School Board, Brian W. Jones, JD;
Designee of the Chairman of the District of Columbia Council, Beverley Wheeler;
Office of the State Superintendent of Education, Jose Alvarez;
Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education, Scheherazade Salimi;
DC Public Schools, Claudia Lujan;
Friends of Choice in Urban Schools (FOCUS), Robert Cane;
DC Association of Public Chartered Schools, Ramona Edelin;
National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Renita Thukral;
Achievement Prep Public Charter School, Shantelle Wright;
Capital City Public Charter School, Karen Dresden
Not in attendance:
American Institutes for Research, Mark Schneider

Welcome

Data Presentation from FOCUS (Friends Of Choice in Urban Schools)
Tables can be found in Appendix V.

Discussion of Data and Decision Points
The Task Force started with a few questions: Should there be a neighborhood preference? If so,
should it be imposed or voluntary? Before they could discuss this further, one member asked whether
we are talking about access to education or quality of education. That member brought up the point
that it seems that having neighborhood preference in other major cities has reduced the amount of
school choice. Most members felt that this Task Force was commissioned to focus on access to
education, not quality of education. While quality of education is important, this Task Force is looking at
neighborhood preference in terms of educational access for the families and students.
The discussion moved into whether neighborhood preference should be needed when a DCPS or
Public Charter School closes. Many members felt that it should be voluntary for the school that comes in
to take over the facility that closed down, though students should have right of first choice at the newly
opened school in the neighborhood.
A few members, noting the data, mentioned that there does not seem to be any need for
neighborhood preference. Another member also pointed out that there was an issue which rose from
the City Council and that the decisions need to be looked at from all aspects, not just from the data.
Another member of the Task Force felt the issue of neighborhood preference was greater for
entering 8
th
graders.
Further, a member declared that many charter schools are in temporary locations and having a
neighborhood preference could lock them into a certain facility or hurt the neighborhood preference
when they move to another location. They felt neighborhood preference should be voluntary as to
reduce any restrictions on the school operators.

26
Two task members explained their experiences with neighborhood preference in the past; one
in Chicago and one in New Orleans. In Chicago, with school closings, there were students that didnt
have access to a school, so they were able to enter both a preference lottery and a city-wide lottery to
help place them in a school. In New Orleans, more than 50% of students at a charter school live within
the catchment zone, though parents have the choice to send their kids to any of four zones nearby. In
addition, the zones are extremely large, defining neighborhood very broadly. They found as a result that
there were no real shifts in enrollment demographics or quality out of this system.
The discussion circled back to closed schools and whether those incoming school operators into
the closed schools should have neighborhood preference. There was some resistance to neighborhood
preference being mandatory as some charter schools are specialty schools such as adult education, or
immersion schools. Others worried that if neighborhood preference was a stipulation of moving into a
better facility some schools would pass on the opportunity. One member brought forth that it is
premature to discuss school closings since it is unknown whether DCPS is closing schools, how many,
and where they are located. It was felt that this should be tabled until more information was known
about the closing of DCPS schools.

Conclusion
The Task Force came to end their discussion in agreement that neighborhood preference should
be voluntary for school operators. The Task Force still has more to discuss about the implications of
school closings on neighborhoods and whether neighborhood preference in the newly opened schools
in those areas would be in the best interest of students and families.
The Task Force has looked at the evidence and does not see a reason for mandating
neighborhood preference, but wants to get public comment on neighborhood preference being
voluntary for school operators.

27
Appendix V: Meeting 2 Data Analysis

Responses to Data Questions from Meeting 1

1. Are there natural breakpoints for enrollment by geography?
Graph 1

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
St. Coletta Special Education
Eagle Academy - M Street
Washington Yu Ying
Friendship - Chamberlain
SEED
Latin American Montessori Bilingual
AppleTree Early Learning - Lincoln
Center City - Capitol Hill
Elsie Whitlow Stokes Community Freedom
Excel Academy
D.C. Prep - Edgewood Middle
Hope Community - Lamond
Cesar Chavez - Parkside
Center City - Congress Heights
Friendship - Blow-Pierce
Education Strengthen Families
KIPP DC: KEY
Capital City - Lower
Capital City - Upper
KIPP DC: Discover
AppleTree Early Learning - Columbia Heights
KIPP DC: Heights
Early Childhood Academy - Johenning
Early Childhood Academy - Walter Washington
Percent of students who live less than a mile from school

28
Graph 2
Note: Incomplete list of schools for representative purposes.

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
St. Coletta Special Education
Howard University Math and Science
WMST
Mundo Verde
E.L. Haynes - Kansas Ave
Two Rivers - Elementary
Ideal Academy - North Capitol
Options
Latin American Montessori Bilingual
William E. Doar, Jr. - Edgewood Elementary
Capital City - Upper
Imagine Southeast
Center City - Congress Heights
AppleTree Early Learning - Riverside
D.C. Prep - Edgewood Middle
Tree of Life Community
Friendship - Blow-Pierce
KIPP DC: Heights
Arts and Technology Academy
Center City - Shaw
Percent of students who live less than a quarter mile from school

29
2. How competitive are Tier 1 Lotteries?
Graph 3

Graph 4
*School'is'untiered,'but'is'part'of'a'network'with'only'Tier'1'schools.
0'
200'
400'
600'
800'
1,000'
1,200'
1,400'
1,600'
1,800'
N
u
m
b
e
r
'
o
f
'
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
'
o
n
'
t
h
e
'
W
a
i
t
l
i
s
t
'
Name'and'Ward'of'Tier'1'School'
Number'of'Students'on'Waitlist'for'Tier'1'Schools'
Number'of'InCWard'Students'on'Waitlist' Number'of'OutCofCWard'Students'on'Waitlist'

30
*Raduis'is'defined'as'within'1/2'mile'for'Grades'PSC5'and'1'mile'for'6C12
0'
200'
400'
600'
800'
1000'
1200'
1400'
N
u
m
b
e
r
'
o
f
'
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
'
o
n
'
t
h
e
'
W
a
i
t
l
i
s
t
'
Name'and'Ward'of'Tier'1'School'
Number'of'Students'on'Waitlist'for'Tier'1'Schools'
Number'of'Students'Inside'Radius*'on'Waitlist' Number'of'Students'Outside'Radius*'on'Waitlist'

31
Table 1

Note:
1
= Green shading indicates enrollment above 30% within one mile.
2
= Green shading indicates
enrollment above 40% within ward.

School Name
Number of
Students on
Waitlist
Percentage of
Enrolled
Students Living
within One Mile
of the School
Percentage of
Enrolled
Students
Living in the
Schools' Ward
School
Ward
2011
PMF
Tier
Two Rivers - Elementary 1146 30% 45% 6 1
Capital City - Lower 1016 46% 42% 1 1
Latin American Montessori Bilingual 585 25% 50% 4 1
Elsie Whitlow Stokes Community
Freedom 583 29% 49% 5 1
E.L. Haynes - Georgia Ave 356 42% 34% 1 1
KIPP DC: College Prep 338 25% 50% 8 1
KIPP DC: KEY 276 42% 64% 7 1
KIPP DC: AIM 275 54% 82% 8 1
Capital City - Upper 217 47% 41% 1 1
Washington Latin - Middle 186 11% 22% 4 1
D.C. Prep - Edgewood Middle 180 31% 50% 5 1
KIPP DC: WILL 129 38% 26% 6 1
Washington Latin - High 120 17% 35% 4 1
Community Academy - Butler 104 25% 20% 2 1
Center City - Petworth 89 76% 73% 4 1
Achievement Prep 40 48% 82% 8 1
Cesar Chavez - Bruce Prep 25 56% 50% 1 1
Center City - Trinidad 1 61% 54% 5 1
Howard University Math and Science 0 20% 15% 1 1
Paul Junior High 0 41% 57% 4 1
SEED 0 20% 37% 7 1
Thurgood Marshall 0 27% 71% 8 1

32
3. How many students are on waiting lists for all charter schools?

Table 2
Notes:
1
= Green shading indicates enrollment above 30% within one mile.
2
= Green shading indicates enrollment
above 40% within ward. Students may be on more than one waiting list. Orange shading indicates a lower
percentage of students living within the designated area.

School Name
Number of
Students on
Waitlist
Percentage of
Enrolled
Students Living
within One Mile
of the School
1
Percentage of
Enrolled
Students Living
in the Schools'
Ward
2
School
Ward
2011
PMF
Tier
E.L. Haynes - Kansas Ave 1581 35% 40% 4 .
Two Rivers - Elementary 1146 30% 45% 6 1
Capital City - Lower 1016 46% 42% 1 1
Mundo Verde 754 21% 9% 2 .
KIPP DC: LEAP 714 39% 60% 7 .
KIPP DC: Promise 614 33% 57% 7 .
Latin American Montessori Bilingual 585 25% 50% 4 1
Elsie Whitlow Stokes Community
Freedom 583 29% 49% 5 1
Imagine Southeast 577 45% 88% 8 2
Washington Yu Ying 432 15% 36% 5 .
D.C. Bilingual 356 48% 42% 1 2
E.L. Haynes - Georgia Ave 356 42% 34% 1 1
KIPP DC: Discover 348 48% 79% 8 .
KIPP DC: College Prep 338 25% 50% 8 1
D.C. Prep - Benning 318 44% 71% 7 .
D.C. Prep - Edgewood Elementary 306 32% 49% 5 .
KIPP DC: KEY 276 42% 64% 7 1
KIPP DC: AIM 275 54% 82% 8 1
AppleTree Early Learning - Lincoln 244 27% 47% 6 .
Capital City - Upper 217 47% 41% 1 1
AppleTree Early Learning - Columbia
Heights 209 53% 49% 1 .
Washington Latin - Middle 186 11% 22% 4 1
D.C. Prep - Edgewood Middle 180 31% 50% 5 1
Education Strengthen Families 170 41% 39% 4 .
Bridges 167 38% 52% 4 .
KIPP DC: Grow 158 28% 20% 6 .
Center City - Brightwood 144 73% 82% 4 2
KIPP DC: Heights 138 56% 83% 8 .
KIPP DC: WILL 129 38% 26% 6 1
AppleTree Early Learning - Parkland 121 54% 86% 8 .
Washington Latin - High 120 17% 35% 4 1

33
(Table 2, part 2)
School Name
Number Of
Students On
Waitlist
Percentage of
Enrolled
Students Living
within One Mile
of the School
1

Percentage of
Enrolled
Students Living
in the Schools'
Ward
2

School
Ward
2011
PMF
Tier
AppleTree Early Learning - Douglass
Knoll 106 51% 76% 8 .
Community Academy - Butler 104 25% 20% 2 1
Shining Stars Montessori 99 31% 31% 1 .
Center City - Capitol Hill 97 27% 26% 6 2
Center City - Petworth 89 76% 73% 4 1
Septima Clark 85 33% 78% 8 3
Next Step 79 51% 44% 1 .
Friendship - Chamberlain 68 19% 19% 6 2
Meridian 64 46% 46% 1 2
Two Rivers - Middle 63 27% 36% 6 .
Potomac Lighthouse 62 14% 30% 5 2
Roots - Kennedy 51 51% 51% 4 2
Achievement Prep 40 48% 82% 8 1
Center City - Congress Heights 40 38% 86% 8 3
Community Academy - Amos I 36 48% 65% 4 2
Howard Road Academy - Main 28 30% 80% 8 3
Arts and Technology Academy 25 66% 82% 7 2
Cesar Chavez - Bruce Prep 25 56% 50% 1 1
AppleTree Early Learning - Riverside 22 69% 69% 6 .
Howard Road Academy - Penn Ave 21 20% 39% 7 .
Center City - Shaw 14 56% 42% 6 2
Perry Street Prep 12 13% 43% 5 2
Howard Road Academy - MLK Middle 11 29% 74% 8 2
Cesar Chavez - Capitol Hill 10 12% 21% 6 2
St. Coletta Special Education 10 6% 21% 7 .
William E. Doar, Jr. - Edgewood
Elementary 8 31% 49% 5 2
Richard Wright 6 23% 53% 7 .
Early Childhood Academy - Johenning 5 63% 84% 8 .
Center City - Trinidad 1 61% 54% 5 1
AppleTree Early Learning - Amidon 0 46% 48% 6 .
AppleTree Early Learning - Oklahoma 0 19% 46% 7 .
Booker T. Washington 0 21% 16% 1 2
Carlos Rosario International 0 42% 36% 1 .
Cesar Chavez - Parkside 0 37% 67% 7 2
Community Academy - Amos II 0 74% 86% 4 .
Community Academy - Amos III 0 46% 28% 5 3
Community Academy - Online Program 0 6% 11% 4 2
Eagle Academy - M Street 0 12% 17% 6 .

34
(Table 2, part 3)
School Name
Number Of
Students On
Waitlist
Percentage of
Enrolled
Students Living
within One Mile
of the School
1

Percentage of
Enrolled
Students Living
in the Schools'
Ward
2

School
Ward
2011
PMF
Tier
Early Childhood Academy - Walter
Washington 0 69% 83% 8 .
Excel Academy 0 30% 77% 8 .
Friendship - Blow-Pierce 0 39% 40% 7 2
Friendship - Collegiate Woodson 0 20% 45% 7 2
Friendship - Southeast Academy 0 44% 91% 8 2
Friendship - Tech Prep 0 38% 89% 8 2
Friendship - Woodridge 0 30% 55% 5 2
Hope Community - Lamond 0 34% 52% 4 2
Hope Community - Tolson 0 38% 55% 5 2
Hospitality 0 26% 32% 4 2
Howard University Math and Science 0 20% 15% 1 1
IDEA 0 40% 61% 7 3
Ideal Academy - North Capitol 0 27% 42% 4 2
Inspired Teaching 0 9% 25% 5 .
LAYC YouthBuild 0 40% 33% 1 .
Mary McLeod Bethune -
Slowe/Brookland 0 36% 45% 5 2
Maya Angelou - Evans 0 35% 57% 7 3
Maya Angelou - Middle 0 58% 78% 7 3
National Collegiate Preparatory 0 40% 76% 8 2
Options 0 27% 21% 6 3
Paul Junior High 0 41% 57% 4 1
SEED 0 20% 37% 7 1
Thurgood Marshall 0 27% 71% 8 1
Tree of Life Community 0 38% 56% 5 3
Washington Math Science and
Technology 0 15% 33% 5 2

4. How many school-aged children attend DCPS, PCS, and non-public?

Graph 5
Source: Data from Office of Planning

Graph 6
Source: Data from OSSE and Office of Planning
Number of children under age 18 by sector and ward

9
,
0
3
4

4
,
6
5
6

1
0
,
1
0
8

1
5
,
2
0
2

1
2
,
7
3
2

9
,
8
8
1

1
7
,
8
2
5

2
1
,
3
7
7

1
0
0
,
8
1
5

0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total
Number of children under age 18 in DC by ward
4
5
4
3

1
0
8
7

3
3
6
6

7
6
7
5

5
7
7
6

4
8
2
5

8
1
4
5

1
0
1
5
6

9
5
5

2
3
5
3

5
7
8

2
7
0

4
9
3
7

4
9
8
7

2
5
7
3

6
2
7
2

7
4
4
6

9
1
7
2
1
3
8

2
9
9
1

6
4
7
2

2
5
9
0

1
9
6
9

2
4
8
3

3
4
0
8

3
7
7
5

0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Enrolled in DCPS Enrolled in a PCS Not enrolled at DCPS or PCS or not school-aged
* Includes children aged 0-2 and 3-4 who do
not attend pre-k

36
Appendix VI: School Leader Survey Results

These are the results of a survey sent out the DC Public Charter Schools in October 2012.

37

38

39
Appendix VII: Meeting 3 Minutes

Achievement Prep Academy
908 Wahler Place Southeast
November 15, 2012 5:30pm

Capital City Public Charter School, Karen Dresden

Not in attendance:
American Institutes for Research, Mark Schneider;
DC Association of Public Chartered Schools, Ramona Edelin;

Welcome by Chairman Jones

Public Comment
(See Appendix VIII)

After the public comment period, Chairman Jones noted the low participation in public
testimony, but also stated that the Task Force reached out to multiple sources to post the notice
for public comment and the scheduling conflict with the DCPS school closure meeting that same
night.

Neighborhood Preference Options Discussion
The Task Force then moved to continue a discussion on the options for Neighborhood
Preference stemming from the previous Task Force meeting. They discussed the three options
on the table:
- Option 1: No Neighborhood Preference in any form
- Option 2: Neighborhood Preference at a Public Charter School that takes over a closed
DC Public School
- Option 3: Neighborhood Preference allowed by a Public Charter School if they petition
the Public Charter School Board

Chairman Jones noted that Option 1 would have no operational changes moving forward. The
discussion then moved to talk about Options 2 and 3. At this time Robert Cane asked if
neighborhood preference would extend to a situation where if a PCS took over a DCPS, then
closed itself, would the next school have to institute a continued neighborhood preference? In

40
other words, if neighborhood preference were required for taking over a DCPS facility, would
neighborhood preference always be required at that facility?
At this time Nathan Saunders raised a question as to whether neighborhood preference
had to be defined by real estate. He worried the implications of no neighborhood preference if
enrollment in charters became an overwhelming majority in DC. Chairman Jones brought back
the underlying theme from last meeting on keeping choice for charter schools, which would be
undermined if real estate was not addressed. Shantelle Wright agreed with Chairman Jones but
also felt that Nathan Saunders look towards the long term was important to note with the
recommendations of the Task Force to the City Council. Scheherazade Salimi echoed those
sentiments and wished for the report to the City Council to outline the options and perspectives
of neighborhood preference instead of providing directives.
Chairman Jones moved the Task Force to discuss Option 3. Chairman Jones mentioned
there would be some operational changes legally allowing the Public Charter School Board
(PCSB) permission to grant neighborhood preference and defining neighborhood under these
circumstances? Robert Cane felt there was great ambiguity with this option and wanted to know
how the PCSB would be able to effectively determine when neighborhood preference would be
educationally advantageous to the city by a petitioning charter school?
Task Force members also brought back to the discussion that there has been very little
comment and outcry from the public about insisting on a neighborhood preference. Beverley
Wheeler mentioned that she has reached out to the City Council members and their
constituency offices and found no records of anyone talking about this issue. Scheherazade
Salimi felt that just because people havent come to comment on it, it does not mean that the
public defaults to not having neighborhood preference. Both Scheherazade Salimi and Shantelle
Wright felt that making policy recommendations would be hasty by the Task Force. Nathan
Saunders also agreed. Chairman Jones stated asked Task Force members to ensure that they
share their notes and thoughts to be included on the report to the City Council.
Nathan Saunders expressed his wish that a working committee, such as this one,
continue to work on this issue and many others going forward. Neighborhood preference could
have many implications on a number of involved parties and this should be readdressed in the
future. He wished to see the Chancellor involved in this conversation as well. In addition to the
options on neighborhood preference, some members of the Task Force wished to see access to
quality seats become a part of the report to the City Council and mention of the need for a city-
wide lottery.
The Task Force agreed that they will recommend no substantive change to the current
process for creating neighborhood preference this year and thus, no policy needs to be enacted.
The report to the City Council is due by December 15
th
. The next Task Force meeting will discuss
the final form of the report.

41
Appendix VIII: Public Testimony

E-mail #1
Subject: Comments on Neighborhood Preference for Admission to DC Charter Schools

Tue 11/13/2012 11:35 PM

On behalf of Excel Academy Public Charter School, I am writing to oppose that neighborhood
preference be implemented in public charter schools in the District of Columbia. We are
pleased to learn that the evidence collected by the neighborhood task force thus far indicates
that there is no reason to create neighborhood preference. Just as you have identified
throughout the city, Excel Academy has many students from other wards who desire the
distinctive educational program offered by our school. Neighborhood preference would deny
parents throughout the city access to that education which, we believe, is antithetical to the
spirit and purpose of charter schools.

Below are responses to the specific areas in which you have requested comments:

It has been suggested that DC should possibly implement an admissions preference for students
who live close to charters schools. What do you think? Is it more important that students be
able to attend any public charter school across the city or should families that live near the
school get a preference?
We believe that at the heart of the charter school movement is educational
choice. Implementing neighborhood preference would restrict parental choice and educational
access.
Should public charter schools that move into closed DCPS schools create a neighborhood
preference for students who attended the DCPS school prior to its closure? Or should all
students who live near that school, regardless of their previous school, get preference?
DCPS is sustaining sufficient neighborhood schools such that families can still choose to place
their students into a DCPS school within their boundary. The placement of a charter school
within a surplussed DCPS building should not trigger neighborhood preference.
Should neighborhood preference only be offered at schools that do not have a specialty, like
dual-language programs or an arts-focus?
We have no comment, as we do not believe neighborhood preference should be implemented.
Is it more important to your family that students have access to any charter school or that
students have access to the closest school, regardless of academic quality?
It is of highest importance that families have access to any charter school of their
choosing. Moreover, the implementation of a neighborhood preference policy would disrupt
established school communities such as ours, where students and families are benefitting from
the diversity of cross-neighborhood enrollment.

We look forward to our school continuing to be available to any family in the District who
desires an Excel Academy education.

Sincerely,

Nikki Stewart

42

Nikki Ayanna Stewart
Chief Academic Officer
Excel Academy Public Charter School
2501 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, SE
Phone: 202-373-0097
Fax: 202-373-0477
Website: www.excelpcs.org

Educate. Empower. Excel.

E-mail #2
Subject: No neighborhood preference for charter schools

Tue 11/13/2012 3:50 PM

Hello. I am a DC resident who has a daughter attending PK at a charter school (Inspired Teaching
School.) I am writing to state my opposition to the idea of a neighborhood preference for
charter schools. Even though it would benefit me personally (would love to get a coveted spot at
the charter school that's less than 1 mi. from our home), I think the most important thing is
providing better opportunities to disadvantaged students who live in Wards 7 and 8 and I
believe they would have fewer opportunities if a neighborhood preference were adopted.

--
Colleen Dailey
Ward 5 resident
Washington, DC

E-mail #3
Subject: Preference for neighborhood charter schools
Thu 11/8/2012 3:56 PM

Comments from Eagle Academy

Regarding the Advisability of having a Neighborhood Preference for admission to DC Public
Charter Schools

November 8, 2012

If the admissions preference for students who live close to charter schools is implemented then
we would be just like regular public schools with boundaries. What keeps charters separate
from neighborhood public schools is the ability to choose which one parents want their children
to attend.
No there should not be a preference when moving into a closed DCOS school. Once those
schools are closed the students have been sent to other schools within their areas. Charter

43
schools moving in may have their own population moving with them from one location to
another.
I think neighborhood preference should be offered at schools with a specialty. Those students in
the neighborhood often get shut out when there is no preference given.
It is most advantageous for families to be able to select a charter school that is best suited to the
needs of the student. Academic quality is not in the equation because DCPCSB does not allow
for schools to continue with poor academic achievement.

Cassandra Pinkney

In Person Comment

Ms. Monica Almond
DC Resident and Parent of Child at Achievement Prep Academy

Thank you again for this opportunity. My name is Monica Almond, and I have a student here at
APA [Achievement Prep Academy]. She's in the 4th grade, and this is her first year here at the
school. I'm a little disappointed that more parents and community members aren't here to
testify about Neighborhood Preference. I found out about it only because I follow different
things that are happening concerning charter schools via Google, different Google alerts that
you can get. So I knew it was happening, but I didn't see a public notification go out that parents
could testify.
So, I have a few concerns, and I typed them up and I plan to give you a hard copy this evening.
We just moved here from California, in July, and so it was very hard to try to find a place in
schools. We had applied to a number of private schools in the area and my daughter was wait-
listed at many of them. And so, at the last minute I was looking for a school to place her.
Our home school is Malcolm X Public School, which is not conducive for any child to attend. So I
definitely was not going to place her there. And I'll try to be brief just to be mindful of
everyone's time. But bottom line is, it was very hard for us to find a place to do my daughter
justice. So I did my research, and I looked at the various tiered schools, and noticed that APA
was close by, and so I looked into that. And, basically, the two major issues that I have with
charter Neighborhood Preference being implemented are, the obvious data that say a large
number of students who access charter schools in the city are African-American and the
opportunity for them to attend Tier 1 schools, which are the schools that are the highest
performing schools, will be limited to them if they don't have the opportunity to access Tier 1
schools in other parts of the city.
According to the data from the Public Charter School Board, the large majority of Tier 1 schools
are in, kind of in the upper-income neighborhoods, or neighborhoods that are outside of Wards
7 and 8. So if students live east of the river, and even students in Ward 5, if they are limited to
schools within their various jurisdictions -- and I know you're all aware of this, but that would
limit their participation in higher performing schools. The second thing that I take issue with
concerning Neighborhood Preference is the lack of diversity that may result in charter schools.
APA is a great school, but to be honest, APA was not my first choice. My first choices were
Capital City, Washington Latin and Two Rivers because of the diversity of the schools, as well as
the learning experiences the students get there. And APA is a great school, again, but for my
child I would prefer a more diverse atmosphere. So, with that said, I was limited to enroll in

44
there because we had gotten here too late, and other lotteries had already closed. Not to
mention, I can't afford to live in those communities. So, we're here, east of the river, and my
daughter is at a fantastic school, a Tier 1 school.
So, with Neighborhood Preference being implemented, you know, it depends. I guess they are
various measures of Neighborhood Preference; it could be voluntary, it could be Neighborhood
Preference to schools like, I just realized on the neighborhood web site that have been shut
down and students in the community, if they're DCPS schools, they would have first preference.
So, there are various levels to that. I think fundamentally the charter school movement was
created to be schools of choice, where parents can enroll their students in any school,
regardless of where they live, regardless of their ability, regardless of what they look like, so I
think to change that fundamental concept of the charter school, kind of changes the focus of the
movement, and it changes the rationale for parents to be, to be able to freely choose where
they send their students.
If I didn't have the charter school choice, my daughter would be at Malcolm X, and I would be
very disappointed. So, the charter school movement here, you know, I believe was founded on
the premise that African-American students are failing and that traditional public school has
failed them unequivocally. So, to limit their opportunities would be detrimental to our
community. And that's pretty much the gist of what I wanted to comment on. Thanks so much
for your time.

45
Appendix IX: Meeting 4 Minutes

3333 14
th
St., NW, Suite 210
November 28, 2012 5:30pm

Members in Attendance:
Capital City Public Charter School, Karen Dresden;
American Institutes for Research, Mark Schneider;
DC Association of Public Chartered Schools, Ramona Edelin

Members not in Attendance:
Washington Teachers Union, Nathan Saunders

Welcome by Chairman Jones
Chairman Jones opened the meeting and summarized notes from the last Task Force
meeting held at Achievement Prep. He reviewed the public comments and Task Force
discussion.

Review and Revise Proposal
The Task Force recognized that the proposal draft had no mentioned of a limited
preference for closed DCPS buildings. Robert Cane felt comfortable with giving the relocated
charter school students the chance to move into that new facility and then give displaced
neighborhood students a right to remain based on the enrollment seats that remained. Mark
Schneider felt there should be simplicity in the proposal but would allow the right to remain
for displaced students. The incoming local education agency (LEA) could decide on whatever
form of neighborhood preference would be allowed, if any.
Jose Alvarez wanted to know what rights neighborhood students would have when a
charter takes over a publically owned building. Karen Dresden asked if charter management
organizations could petition for neighborhood preference on a case-by-case basis if it connects
to the schools mission. Jose Alvarez mentioned his worry with right to remain citing that in
Chicago, charters that took over a public school facility were required to give preference for
displaced neighborhood students for one year. In addition, only new charters were allowed to
move into closed down facilities, not current charter management organizations that were
looking to expand or relocate.

46
Chairman Jones also agreed with Mark Schneider about having a simpler proposal and
was very nervous about making a charter school turn into a neighborhood school, which takes
away choice from the school operators and could limit choice for parents.
Karen Dresden mentioned that a common lottery system would be a way to allow more
preferences into the charter enrollment system, including neighborhood preference. Mark
Schneider agreed, saying that better lottery system could allow parents to prioritize
neighborhoods and alleviate this issue.

Other Thoughts and Concerns
Scheherazade Salimi brought forward her concern about community reaction. Chairman
Jones felt that there has been little evidence or feedback thus far in the process and did not see
there being a reaction now. Beverley Wheeler, Scheherazade Salimi, and Mark Schneider agreed
that there has been no feedback from the community disagreeing with this stance, but that
does not necessarily means there is evidence for support. We cannot assume the communitys
stance on this issue because there was little community engagement on this issue. Mark
Schneider wanted to ensure that the proposal will outline exactly what the Task Force discussed
and the time frame they were given, then qualify the process the Task Force used to come to
this proposal.
OSSE and DME both wish that public buildings that are transferred to charters be open
for neighborhood preference for a number of years. Karen Dresden felt this took choice out of
the system by imposing neighborhood preference. Scheherazade Salimi felt that choice was still
present since the charter can decide whether or not to take a public building from DCPS under
those conditions. She went on to question why there was no legislation that allowed for charters
to officially institute neighborhood preference if it wished. Both the DME and OSSE planned to
discuss with their colleagues some points from the Task Force meeting and add their input to
the proposal.

Next Steps
The final proposal is due to the DC City Council on December 15, 2012.

Neighborhood Preference Task Force Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Neighborhood Preference Task Force Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3333 14

You might also like