What DCPS can Learn from KIPP Charters

Recently, KIPP charter schools announced that they are working with colleges across the nation to help recruit KIPP graduates. The Washington Post reports that, “KIPP will promote the 20 colleges among its 39,000 students nationwide, and in exchange, the colleges will identify and recruit top KIPP students, help those who have financial need and ensure those who enroll stay on track to graduate.” DC universities such as Georgetown University and Trinity University pledged to identify top recruits from KIPP charters in DC. These students will have merits of academic achievement with expressed financial need, help universities diversify socio-economically, and the university help support these students to complete their bachelor’s degree.

Programs like these offer successful charter schools more of a competitive advantage for parents looking to optimize school-choice. While all charter schools may not be as successful of a brand as KIPP, there are some takeaway points to the culture of college readiness and aptitude that District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) can learn from. Many, as the Washington Post also reports in the article, claim that KIPP benefits from having more invested parents. Realistically, KIPP has policies that demand parental involvement and attentiveness. Arguably, increasing parental engagement and community involvement in DCPS could be easily replicated.

There is much published evidence to suggest a positive relationship between increasing parental involvement and achieving better school outcomes. There are published guidelines for schools to promote parental involvement policies.

Given the research, maybe DCPS should start ranking or assessing schools based on community involvement. DCPS has several new staff members that seem interested in incorporating greater parental involvement to improve DCPS schools. Efforts of increasing family engagement within schools is seem unmeasured and largely undocumented on both the DCPS and Office of the State Superintendent of Education's website.  

As the KIPP charters show, parental involvement is one aspect of school success. Parents are excited about their children’s learning at KIPP because the charter provides students quality education with outcomes of measurable educational attainment. The charter’s environment of success and academic achievement is reflected in parental involvement and later student educational attainment. KIPP’s policies regarding parental involvement are something DCPS needs to take notes on.

Reforming the Reform?

D.C. education continues to receive only a fraction of the focus, participation, and public voice necessary at the Council level to ensure student development and success. So, as asked by Council Member Michael Brown during the October 16th Council Hearing on DCPS, is it time to “Reform the reform”?

In 2007 the D.C. Council gave full oversight of DCPS issues to the Mayor and the mayoral appointed Chancellor. An education committee was eliminated and the Committee of the Whole took charge of D.C.’s most pressing issue, public education.

The intentions are understood, but the actual benefits are debatable. While the previous committee consisted of five Council Members, the Committee of the Whole is chaired by the Council Chairperson and consists of all 13 Council Members. The urgency and interest from the full Council appeared to be the first step toward a 13 person commitment for reform, but as seen during the recent Council Hearing on October 16th, only a handful of Council Members are really involved. A mere 5 Council Members were present any significant portion of time during the 18 hour hearing.

With questions about erasures, fluctuating attendance numbers, a teacher union contract in limbo, RIFs, and accountability, at no other time than the present is the need for a proper governing voice on DC education issues more apparent.

The Committee of the Whole manages over 13 issues ranging from the annual budget to relationships with local ANCs. With scheduled meetings only once per month, it is questionable how much time the Committee can allocate to public hearings on education issues.

Testimony by budget specialists and advocacy groups at the October 16th hearing identified lack of transparency in the budget.

Some Council Members suggested on Friday that Mayor Fenty’s administration, while touting accountability and transparency, is “anti-accountability and anti-transparency”. If true, the Council can only look in the mirror and take partial blame for maintaining a loose structure of oversight.

The existence of a Committee on Education would not only provide a dedicated staff monitoring oversight and accountability, but also allow District residents to know who is responsible for management of public education at the Council level. In a time with continued questioning of accountability, a designated committee providing public transparency and oversight should be a priority.

So Council Member Michael Brown, you’re right, it is time to “reform the reform”. The first step, though, should be to reform the Council. D.C. deserves a Committee on Education with a focused, dedicated, and participatory Council who listen to the public voice.