1). D.C. Authorizing Boards Differed in Revenue and Their Use of D.C. Government Services, but Spent Their Financial Resources on Similar Oversight Activities

The two D.C. authorizers’ revenue, staff, and use of available D.C. services  differed, but the authorizers spent their funds on similar activities. To help fulfill its oversight  responsibilities, the BOE Office of Charter Schools occasionally called  upon D.C. agencies for financial operations reviews and used some D.C.  Public School services. Despite these differences, both  authorizers used their financial resources similarly. BOE Office of Charter Schools Received Less Funding and Had Fewer Staff to Oversee Fewer Schools Than PCSB, but Used More Available Government Services

The BOE Office of Charter Schools received less funding from its two  main sources of revenue—the local funds allocated to it by the BOE and  the administrative fees it was permitted to charge the schools it oversaw— than the corresponding amounts received by the PCSB (see table 2). PCSB Received More Funding and Had More Staff to Oversee Schools, and Used Fewer Available Government Services

In fiscal years 2003 and 2004, the PCSB received more revenue, had a  larger staff and oversaw more schools than the BOE Office of Charter  Schools. The BOE Office of Charter Schools used a larger percentage of its total  expenses for consultants than the PCSB. Both authorizers provided charter schools with  assistance and had similar oversight practices, such as visiting each school  at least once annually to assess performance and school operations. The BOE Office of  Charter Schools, staffed with only three employees, provided the same  level of oversight to all of its 16 schools and in doing so limited its ability  to provide additional assistance to those schools needing more help. Moreover, the BOE, which was also responsible for 167 traditional public  schools, did not regularly review information collected by its Office of  Charter Schools. By  contrast, the PCSB targeted additional oversight on new charter schools  and those where problems had been identified. The PCSB also integrated technical assistance and monitoring. The PCSB’s targeted monitoring  approach also highlighted problems at both of the PCSB’s schools that  later closed. Authorizers Undertook a Wide Range of Activities When Schools Closed, but the Process Was Not Well Defined

When charter schools have closed, both authorizers undertook a wide  range of activities to ensure student records and public assets were  safeguarded, parents informed of their children’s school options, and  closing schools received the assistance they needed; however, issues arose  during closings that both found difficult to readily address. Managing Student Records Was the Most Challenging Aspect of School Closings

Both authorizers reported managing and safeguarding student records was  the most challenging aspect of closing schools. To help alleviate confusion  among parents, students and school administrators following the closure  of a charter school and to help the D.C. authorizers close schools  efficiently, we recommend that the BOE Office of Charter Schools, the  PCSB and D.C. Public Schools establish a routine process when schools  close, including, among other things, a system for the secure transfer and  maintenance of student records. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

As required by the D.C. Appropriations Act of 2005, we conducted a review  of D.C.’s two charter school authorizers, the Board of Education (BOE)  and the Public Charter School Board (PCSB). Charter Schools: Limited Access to Facility Financing.
Why GAO Did This Study

D.C. has a larger percentage of students in charter schools than any state. To help oversee D.C. charter schools, Congress established two authorizers--the Board of Education (BOE), which has an Office of Charter Schools responsible for oversight, and the independent Public Charter School Board (PCSB). Congress required the GAO to conduct a study of the authorizers. This report--which completes GAO's May 2005 study--examines the (1) authorizers' resources, (2) oversight practices, and (3) actions taken once charter schools close. GAO examined BOE and PCSB monitoring reports, revenue and expenditure documents, and closure procedures.

What GAO Found

The two D.C. charter school authorizers differed in revenue, number of staff overseeing schools, and use of D.C. services, but both spent their funds to support oversight activities. The BOE Office of Charter Schools had less revenue and fewer staff overseeing fewer schools than PCSB. It fulfilled its oversight responsibilities by using some D.C. Public School services and also occasionally calling upon D.C. agencies for financial operations reviews. The PCSB had a larger staff that oversaw more schools and had revenue more than two times larger than that of the BOE Office of Charter Schools. The PCSB did not use any D.C. Public Schools services, but did refer one school to a D.C. agency for further examination. Despite these differences, both authorizers used most of their fiscal year 2004 expenses for in-house board operations, such as personnel, and also hired consultants to help monitor charter schools. Both D.C. authorizers provided technical assistance to schools and had similar oversight practices, such as tracking school academics and finances, but took different approaches. The BOE Office of Charter Schools, with only 3 staff, provided the same level of oversight to all of its 16 schools and thereby limited its ability to target additional resources to schools requiring more assistance. Moreover, when the BOE Office of Charter Schools gave its Board monitoring information on its charter schools, the Board--also responsible for the city's 167 traditional schools--did not regularly review that information. In contrast, the PCSB targeted additional oversight on new charter schools and those where problems had been identified. The PCSB also granted more flexibility to well-managed schools. Although problems persisted at some schools, the PCSB's targeted system enabled it to focus more attention on these schools. Once D.C. charter schools closed, both authorizers took a number of actions to safeguard student records and public assets and inform parents of their children's educational options; however, issues arose that both authorizers found difficult to adequately address, particularly when the closed school was insolvent. Managing and safeguarding student records was the most expensive and challenging aspect of closing schools, authorizers reported. Moreover, the authorizers' closure processes were different each of the 9 times charter schools closed, which limited opportunities to build on past experiences.