Very good.

I'm calling to order this hearing.

This is a public hearing of the committee as a whole of the council of the District of Columbia.

I am Phil Mendelssohn, Chair of the Council and Chair of the Committee as a whole.

Today is Monday, July 6, 2026.

The time is 442 in the afternoon.

We are in room 412 of the Johnny Wilson building.

This hearing is being recorded and will be available on the council's website, www.dccouncil.gov.

The subject of this hearing is Bill 26-592 entitled Lottery Preference for Families Impacted by School Closures Amendment Act of 2026.

This legislation was introduced on February 2nd, 2026 by Councilman members Zachary Parker and Matt Freuman.

The stated purpose of the bill is to amend the school reform act to require public charter schools to offer an admissions preference to any applicant who during the current or immediately preceding school year attended a school that was closed.

The legislation addresses the challenges faced by students whose schools close abruptly, such as in 2024, the closure of Eagle Academy Public Charter School, and ensures these students are given priority in the district's annual school lottery.

The bill seeks to support continuity for impacted families by guaranteeing that this preference applies either immediately when a closure is announced during the ongoing lottery period or in the next lottery year, depending upon the timing of the closure.

We have eight witnesses before we get to two government witnesses.

The record in this matter will close in two weeks.

That is at 5 p.m.

on Monday, July 20th, 2026.

What does that mean?

That means that if anybody wants comments, whether they're testifying today or not, once comments included in the record, they have to file by 5 p.m.

on Monday, July 20th.

That doesn't mean that we won't consider anything given to us after that, but it won't be filed in the record.

I'm gonna turn to my colleague, Councilmember Zachary Parker.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I'm looking forward to today's hearing.

Uh this is actually hearing number two for us.

Uh, this bill before us would establish a preference in the district's annual public school lottery for students whose schools have closed and require uh district public charter schools to honor that preference.

When a school closes, families are often forced to make difficult decisions on a very short notice.

In some cases, closures occur just weeks before the start of a school year after the annual lottery has concluded, leaving parents with far fewer options than they would have had during the regular enrollment process.

We saw this in 2024 when Eagle Academy uh announces closure less than two weeks before the school began, school year began.

Although students were ultimately enrolled in other district public and public charter schools, many families had already lost the opportunity to participate in the full lottery and instead had to choose from schools with seats that remained available.

School closures can have lasting consequences for students.

Research suggests that students displaced by school closures may experience long-term negative effects on their educational attainment and future earnings.

While the district cannot prevent school closures necessarily, we can do more to lessen their impact by ensuring that effective families have a meaningful opportunity to enroll in a school that best meets their child's need.

This legislation is intended to provide that opportunity.

If a school closure is announced while the lottery is underway, affected students would receive a lottery preference during that application cycle.

If the closure occurs after the lottery has concluded, the preference would apply during the following year's lottery.

In advance of today's hearing and generation of the bill, I spoke with and worked alongside school leaders and education partners, including many in the charter sector.

I bring that up because I got win that there's going to be testimony today about how uh there was no consultation with many partners, including my school DC.

Uh, the problem here is clear, and the legislation seeks to address an equity issue infecting many of our young people.

While there was broad recognition that families affected by school closures deserve additional support.

Some stakeholders expressed concern and I believe continue to express concern about establishing a new lottery preference and how it could affect existing enrollment priorities and school capacity.

Specifically, I anticipate we will hear about making this lottery preference a requirement or whether it's optional.

The question I would just pose if it's optional and no one chooses to enforce that lottery option, is it truly an option?

That is a question I hope we'll answer today.

But I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and the thoughtful discussion about how we can best support families navigating the disruption of a school closure.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Councilmember.

So I'm gonna call Witnesses.

Elizabeth Mitchell.

Anne Herr.

Alexandra Sumbana.

Margie Yeager.

Chelsea Coffin.

Daniela Anello.

Jessica Giles.

Shannon Hodge.

Just so you know you're not alone, there everybody almost everybody else is virtual.

Oh, well, why don't we start with you, Ms.

Mitchell?

And good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Chairman, members of the council and staff.

My name is Elizabeth Mitchell, and I am a parent serving on the My School DC Parent Advisory Council.

Our council is made up of parents from across both DCPS and charter schools.

Our work is grounded in one shared goal: keeping the district's school lottery fair, transparent, and equitable for every family and student who relies on it.

I'm here today with other members of the Parent Advisory Council to urge you to oppose proposed Bill B 260592, the lottery preference for families impacted by school closures amendment act of 2026.

But I'm testifying in my personal capacity.

The Parent Advisory Council opposes this bill because it would undermine the fairness, equity, and establish rules, the uh rules that govern the lottery.

It privileges charter schools over DCPS and it sets a precedent that would erode uniform standards applied across all participating schools.

We're also concerned that this bill uh creates the appearance of a new entitlement to charter school seats, disrupting the carefully maintained balance and integrity of the lottery system.

I would like to underscore three critical concerns outlined in the letter we submitted.

First, the legislation did not go through My School DC, the Common Lottery Board, or any of the parents' educators or lottery experts who manage our enrollment system every day.

Second, by creating a preference specifically for charter enrollment, this bill elevates charter access above the public by rights school system.

The mission of MySchool DC is to maintain impartiality and provide equal access to both sectors without prejudice.

Third, the bill creates a new right to charter school attendance.

The current statute gives schools discretion and whether and how to implement enrollment preferences.

In other words, schools may extend these preferences as they see fit.

But this bill, by encoding a shall preference for closure affected students, begins to create the legal appearance of an entitlement.

Uniform expectations matter to every local education agency participating in the lottery.

Passing this bill sets a detrimental precedent, open the opening the door to similar requests in the future, and turning what should be firm standards into negotiable options.

For several years, the PAC has advocated for clear guidelines to protect families from disruptive, sometimes 11th hour changes to institutions' plans after the lottery has already closed and families have made their choices.

Families spend months researching, ranking, and enrolling through MySchool DC.

Once that process is underway, there's no fair way to insert a new preference, whether it affects 16 students or 6,000.

We ask that any concerns about school closures be addressed through the established MySchool DC protocols, not through the legislation that bypasses the very community charge with protecting this system's integrity.

Thank you for your time and for your continued commitment to DC's students and families.

Thank you.

And can we get a copy of your statement?

I emailed it, but late.

Okay.

Uh Ann Her, who's online.

Good afternoon, Chairman Mendelssohn and members of the committee, and thanks to council members Parker and Freeman for introducing this legislation.

My name is Ann Herr.

I live in Ward 1, and I'm the Senior Director of School Development and Accountability at the DC Charter School Alliance.

We fully support the intention behind this legislation to support students and families who are negatively affected when a school closes.

I want to start with a point about public charter school closures.

While disruptive, closures play an important role in making it possible for every student in the city to have access to a high performing school.

Accountability is critical.

Schools are granted autonomy in exchange for being held accountable for results, and schools that don't meet standards close.

With that said, it's not fair for students to bear the burden of school closures.

If we can help families navigate these disruptions, we should.

This legislation is a good start.

The most difficult situation for families to navigate is when schools close after the MySchool DC lottery period, leaving families with limited options.

The DC PCSB has made significant adjustments to its school review process to make sure that such closure decisions, when necessary, occur ahead of the lottery period.

These closures are already rare, and streamlined accountability processes should make them even rarer.

However, there may still be times when an unpredicted situation forces a school to close outside of the desired window.

This bill rightly focuses on students who can't participate in the lottery.

We do have some significant concerns about the current legislation as well as an idea.

First, it makes the lottery preference mandatory for all charter schools.

This is unprecedented.

And second, it applies this requirement only to charter schools and not to DCPS schools, even while requiring charter schools to offer a lottery preference to students from closed DCPS schools.

Fortunately, a better model is available.

In 2022, the council passed the Equitable Access Preference, which created a voluntary lottery preference for students designated as at-risk.

The equitable access preference is available to schools in both sectors.

It also offers two pathways, a lottery preference as well as the option to set aside designated seats for at-risk students.

And it requires schools to demonstrate the capacity to support the needs of students admitted through the preference before opting in.

The immediate goal is to help displaced students find another school, but we should also aim to increase the chances that these students end up in a higher performing higher performing school and to minimize the chances that they experience multiple school closures.

Legislation should continue how to reduce the likelihood that displaced students immediately enroll in a school that is also struggling.

In conclusion, we encourage the council to structure this preference along the lines of the equitable access preference.

That would include in-depth consultation with MySchool DC, Aussie, DC PCSP, and other stakeholders, including experts, LEAs, and parents, to make sure this legislation accomplishes its objectives.

The DC Charter School Alliance is ready to partner with the council and all stakeholders in this work.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Alex Timbana.

Good afternoon.

My name is Alexandra Sambano.

While I proudly served on the MySchool DC Parent Advisory Committee, I'm here today in my personal capacity as a DCPS parent.

Through the last 11 years, I've served in different roles within the city's education landscape.

I've received calls for help from families or fellow education advocates when schools have suddenly closed to help communicate with our Spanish-speaking community members or parents who just need to understand what happens now.

Well, I haven't been directly impacted by one of these school closures.

I've seen the damage and turmoil that they cause up close.

It is with that knowledge that this and the stories of these families and students that I voiced my deep concerns with the MySchool DC PAC, received questions about late applications to add schools or change locations over the last few cycles.

After all, the questions about late applications in the end is a fault of poor planning, bad administration or lack of concern to follow the rules.

In the end, they are adult-created problems that do not consider the families or students and the many facets they use for their decision making when applying for schools.

This lack of planning or what have you should not cause a whole system to bend and disrupt the process for all the families who participate in the lottery system.

Rules are rules, and everyone should abide by them.

Additionally, the spirit behind the lottery is to provide an unbiased and equalized application process to both sectors.

This legislation will drastically change that mission and the approach of impartiality.

This current legislation does not address the issues of the past nor does it cure issues for the future.

In fact, I believe it causes harm to our byright DCPS schools.

While parents have a choice between sectors, they do not have a right to attend any charter schools.

As we've seen with many issues within the charter sector, the issues of accountability, transparency, and oversight are significant for many charter schools.

Those are the issues at the heart of the failures of fallen schools and of schools currently in crisis.

I do not think there should be legislation that would cure that would cure that ongoing and persistent issue rather than trying to fix a problem that at its core is a business administration failure.

I do not say this lightly, nor without regard for the families that find themselves in the crosshairs of schools in crisis.

I would encourage this body to close the door on this proposed legislation and allow MySchool DC to run the lottery as it has done successfully for over 10 years.

I also can't help but notice that of all the voices testifying before this committee today, none of them include representation from a vital government witness, a representative from DCPS.

In some ways, I'm not surprised since DCPS does not advocate for itself as it's an arm of the mayor's office.

So the advocacy of negative impacts usually and largely falls on parent advocates.

I don't understand how we can entertain this legislation without a critical stakeholder in the conversation.

I urge the council to hold on any changes and instead work within the established structure of MySchool DC's lottery process.

Attached to my testimony is the parent advisory committee's letter, where the PAC firmly opposes legislation with 18 of the 23 citywide reps signing the letter.

Thank you.

I'm available for questions.

Thank you.

And Ms.

Mitchell, I got a copy of your statement, but I don't have a copy of yours.

I'll send it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Margie Yeager.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Margie Yeager.

I'm a Ward 3 resident, the parent of three public school students in the district, and the managing partner of education for a DC.

And for DC combines strategic grant making, hands-on partnerships, and citywide coordination across both traditional public and public charter schools to ensure a great public school for every DC student.

We thank you, Mr.

Chairman, and Councilmember Parker for the opportunity to testify today on the lottery preference for families impacted by school closures amendment of 2026.

The rigorous oversight and accountability are key features of DC's public school system, ones that have led to the education progress we've seen over the past two decades.

Accelerating that progress and fulfilling the promise of a great public school that prepares our students for bright futures, requires that we grow what's serving our students best, invest in improvements where possible, and responsibly closed schools that are not helping students achieve.

While school closures play a role in efforts to deliver better educational outcomes for students, they are difficult for school communities and create disruptions for students and families.

Just last week, PCSB approved its school reorganization policy that expands the toolbox of options for school leaders to respond to challenges that could necessitate a closure in a way that creates easier transitions for students.

Taken together, these changes will reduce the most disruptive instances of a school closure.

However, we recognize that not every scenario can be accounted for, and we appreciate the council examining ways it can further provide transition support for students and families when unpredictable closures occur.

However, we do have some concerns about the specific piece of legislation is drafted, which would impose a mandatory preference on public charter schools only when all of their preferences are voluntary.

And while the preference could benefit students from a closing traditional DCPS school intending to attend a DC public charter school, the reverse is not true and precludes DC public charter school families from the full range of options in our public school choice system.

All our decisions should be grounded in what's best for students, requiring a school to prioritize accepting students from a closed school, regardless of whether that school is prepared to serve them well, risk placing students in a school that isn't the right fit rather than the one that best sets them up for success.

Every decision we make in these processes from review, reorganization, and closure should be driving towards placing a student in a higher performing school that sets them up for success.

We believe the council should align this new preference with the model laid out by the Equitable Access Preference, which we supported in the council enacted in 2022 to support students designated as at risk.

This model created a voluntary cross-sector preference as well as the option to set aside seats specifically for at-risk students.

This ensures that students are prepared and have a plan to, sorry, this ensures that schools are prepared and have a plan to support these students better than the school they are exiting.

Thank you so much for the time and opportunity to testify today.

I'm also happy to answer any questions and to work further with the council as this legislation is considered.

Thank you, Mr.

Yeager.

Uh Chelsea Coffin.

Good afternoon, Chairman Mendelssohn, Councilmember Parker, and members of the committee of the whole.

My name is Chelsea Coffin, and I am the Deputy Director of the DC Policy Center, an independent think tank focused on advancing policies for a growing, vibrant, and compelling District of Columbia.

Today I will highlight why and under which circumstances a lottery preference for students who attend closing schools matters, as well as potential incentives for public charter LEAs to opt in to offering this preference.

As context, this lottery preference for children who attend closing schools will likely be increasingly relevant in the coming years as the number of closures may increase.

In the past five school years since the pandemic, between one and two public charter campuses have closed in DC with an average enrollment around 200 students.

This is lower than pre-pandemic the pre-pandemic level of between four and five charter school campuses closing per year with an average enrollment of 1,200 students for two main reasons.

First, statewide assessment results were not available for two years post-pandemic, limiting full academic accountability.

Second, the DC public charter school board shifted the new ASFIR accountability system, meant a pause and public reporting of school performance.

Fully implementing a SPIR for high-stakes accountability purposes with consistent statewide assessment results could increase public charter closures in the coming years.

In addition to shifts in performance-based closures, potential enrollment declines in early grades could lead to financial strain.

DC Policy Center projections indicate an enrollment decline of around 3,000 students in pre-kindergarten to elementary school grades over the next five years, the equivalent of seven to eight elementary schools.

This could mean that some underenrolled schools are more prone to closure due to lower revenues and increased financial pressures, especially if the per-pupil funding amount increases at rates lower than inflation as projected in the financial plan.

Even if the number of students impacted by closures hovers around 200 annually, this is still a significant number, larger than the number of students who currently benefit from a special education preference or military preference.

Previous DC policy center modeling on application patterns has shown that preferences like the equitable access preference can have a meaningful impact on individual students, even if the impact across the system is small, as almost one-third of schools did not have wait lists in their entry grades last school year, and an estimated two-thirds had fewer than 10 names, meaning that a preference is not necessary to gain a spot.

In addition to having a wait list, a closure preference only matters if public charter schools are offering seats and grades outside of entry grades and if closures are noticed well in advance of common lottery application deadlines.

I close with two recommendations.

First, allow public charter LEAs to opt into this preference, as is the case with the other seven main types of preferences currently available in the lottery.

Requiring public charter LEAs to offer this preference would be a divergence from the norm and from DCPS practices.

If there is a concern that no public charters LEAs would opt in, perhaps the district could offer a one-time funding rate through the per pupil funding formula for students who attended closed schools with approval required from DCP CSB to offer the preference, similar to the process for equitable access.

Second, speak with DCPS to see if they are considering this preference, including at their eight citywide schools as well as their nine selective high schools.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

I welcome any questions you may have.

Thank you, Ms.

Coffin.

Daniela Pendello.

Hello, everybody.

Thank you so much, Chairman Mendelssohn, Councilmember Parker, and members of the committee.

My name is Didia Linelo, and I'm the CEO of DC bilingual public charter school.

I'm here today to share concerns.

The lottery lottery preference of Family Impacted by school closures amendment act of 2026 is something I deeply understand, and I want you to know that it is my deep desire to support families whose schools are closing.

I think that's all of our deepest desire.

School closures are disruptive and painful, and families deserve support, clear information, and access to strong educational options.

But I'm concerned that creating a new lottery preference does not fully account for what it actually takes for a school to successfully receive a large number of students from a closing school.

DC bilingual has lived this experience.

In 2015, we welcomed close to 100 students as a result of the closure of Community Academy Public Charter School, or CAPS.

Many of those students entered DC bilingual in their first, second, or third grade.

A significant consideration for dual language school where students begin learning in both English and Spanish from their earliest years.

We did not simply add the students the classrooms.

We had to rethink language acquisition model.

We created new classrooms that had fewer students and a Spanish lead and an English lead language teacher in each of the classrooms in order to ease students into a bilingual learning environment.

We also had to create a new Spanish as a second language program specifically to support students who are new to learning Spanish.

We hired additional teachers and language specialists to support us with what it would take to have children acquire second language at a later later start.

We purchased new curriculum and materials.

We adjusted instructional programming and we invested significant time supporting and onboarding families into the bilingual school model that was new to many of the families.

We're committed to making the transit, we were committed and continue to be committed to making the transition successful for any students looking to enter a new school.

I'm personally incredibly proud of the students and families and staff that were able to do this successfully at DC bilingual.

But the success required significant financial resources, staffing, planning, and organizational capacity.

My concern is that this legislation creates a preference without addressing the resources schools may need to serve students well once they arrive and their families.

I also encourage council to carefully consider how this new preference would interact with existing lottery preferences, including sibling preference, staff preference, and equitable access preference.

These priorities exist for important reasons, and adding another preference could have unintended consequences for families already relying on them.

Supporting families impacted by school closures is absolutely the right goal.

But the solution should not simply be about providing access to another school.

It must also ensure that receiving schools have the resources and capacity to help students successfully transition and thrive.

I urge the council to engage directly with schools that have actually experienced receiving large number of students following a school closure to fully understand the operational, instructional, and financial implications as this legislation moves forward.

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

Thank you.

I don't have a copy of your statement if you could provide that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Jessica Giles, I believe is not here.

Shannon Hodge, I believe is online.

Yes.

Good afternoon, Chairman Mendelson, Councilmember Parker, and members of the committee and staff.

My name is Shannon Sodge, and I'm a Ward 7 resident, the CEO of KIP DC Public Schools, and a member of the Common Lottery Board.

I've submitted written testimony for the record, and what follows is an overview.

I come to this hearing with an unusual perspective.

I began my public charter school career as the final executive director of a charter school that relinquished its charter.

Later led a charter school that received the majority of its students from a school that had closed.

And today I lead a network that has absorbed students from closed charter schools.

I've sat on every side of this issue.

I understand what this legislation is trying to do, and I respect it.

The question before this committee, though, is not whether displaced students deserve support.

They do.

The question is whether this legislation, as written, is the right way to provide it.

I have serious concerns on four counts.

First, receiving schools need resources, not just obligations.

Of the nearly three dozen schools that have closed in the district since the 2012 13 school year, not one exceeded statewide average proficiency rates in either English language arts or mathematics in their last year of publicly available data.

Not one.

That includes both charter schools and DCPS schools.

Receiving schools are being asked to absorb students who are navigating a school transition while performing in most cases well below grade level.

That work, as you've heard, requires additional staff, transition support, and programmatic adjustment.

It cost more than the school was budgeted to provide.

And for charter schools, whose academic performance is existential under Aspire, a rapid influx of students from a closed campus creates accountability risk the legislation does not address.

Second, charter schools should not stand alone in this obligation.

DCPS schools participate in the same lottery.

Displaced students seek placement in both sectors.

The jurisdictions that have implemented a closure preference, Denver and New Orleans, applied it across all schools, not one sector alone.

Schools in the same lottery should stand on equal footing.

Third, the legislation does not account for how differently the two sectors close schools.

Charter closures are individual decisions.

DCPS has historically closed schools in waves.

In 2012-13, 10 DCPS schools closed at once.

This legislation would impose the same mandatory obligation on every charter school in the lottery, regardless of the scale of a closure event, with no cap and no additional resources.

Fourth, we should understand what we already have before adding something new.

Every preference previously added to the MySchool DC lottery was conceived by charter schools and designed in consultation with My School DC before coming to the council.

This legislation did not go through that process.

My specific asks are detailed in my written testimony.

At the highest level, fund receiving schools adequately, apply any new obligation equally across both sectors, and convene the stakeholders before legislating.

The students displaced by school closures deserve a solution built with the care and deliberation their situation requires.

Thank you, and I welcome your questions.

Thank you.

Give me just a second.

So the way I've heard this testimony is a number of witnesses have said there need to be substantial changes to the legislation.

The two who are here in person seem to just oppose the legislation.

Some of the testimony we got was along the lines of structure this preference along the lines of equitable access preference, particularly making it voluntary and available to schools in both sectors, allowing a designated seats approach and taking steps to ensure that schools who receive students from closed schools are well positioned to do so.

We also urge consultation with my school D.C.

OSE, public charter school board and other stakeholders.

If that approach were taken, would you both of you still be opposed?

And if that's an unfair question.

So I think it's important to note one, that sitting here before you today, I am just speaking for myself and not on behalf of the PAC.

The letter that the 18 members of the 23 member council or committee sent to you or to the to the full council on this matter, which was like 72% of the PAC, includes both charter and DCPS parents.

And when we are wearing that PAC role, we are very conscientious about balancing the needs of the family and the students outside of our own personal preferences.

So I almost feel like Chairman, it's um without hearing what the other 22 members of the PAC would bring to the table and discuss in addressing such a question.

Um, I don't feel that it's fair for me to voice my own um my own sentiments on it, because I take my responsibility as a PAC member very seriously, and as we all do when we consider these questions, what I would suggest is proposing the matter to the PAC as we have done with two previous times and applied thoughtful overall perspective on the impacts to both sectors, Ms.

Mitchell.

I'd like the record to reflect that I defer everything to Miss Simbana, who is my leader in all of these things.

I just joined the PAC this year, and she's been very instrumental in educating me on a lot of these different issues, especially because she, as a parent, has also been in both spaces, GCPS and charters.

Um so I'm in learning mode mostly, but I would say as an individual and as someone who's testified in these education spaces before, what I'm hearing today is that we all agree that this is an issue, that these are the most vulnerable students that we have, this very select group of students who are in this position and they should not be punished.

What I think you've also heard is that this legislation is not how we save those students in this moment.

Um I think in other areas, I've also heard this doesn't feel very timely.

It does sound like the charter board has done some things to improve the situation.

I think it's a bigger conversation that needs to have more stakeholders, as Ms.

Simbana has said.

Um, I'd love for more of our the parties that we talked about in here being brought in to discuss how we solve for this in a way that doesn't undo the work that the incredible work that the PAC has done for the past 10 years to really develop a system that feels like it's meeting the needs of most of the families in DC.

Fair enough.

Thank you.

Councilmember Parker, do you have any questions?

Uh thank you.

Uh I do have a few questions.

Like you, it seems um that there's several groups.

It seems like people understand the intent.

There are some that are opposed to this.

I have questions there.

There are some that support it, but we should make it optional versus mandating uh this lottery preference.

And then there's others that I'm assuming uh want other resources and means connected to it while also making it optional.

I think we heard loud and clear that people don't want a requirement for a lottery preference, even if set lottery preference is designed in an equity basis, make it optional, and I do have questions there.

I wanted to start with you, Miss Mitchell.

You made a statement in your testimony that this benefits charters through the lottery process, and how can you just say more about that?

How would having a mandated uh lottery preference for school closures benefit charters?

I don't know where I said that.

Okay, fair enough.

Fair enough.

Um I believe it was early on in your statement.

Listen, I'm recovering from the weekend.

It's all good.

It's all it is all good.

It's suburb DC.

But I would say similarly, Miss Simbana, uh, you kind of alluded to so I heard two points of feedback.

One, uh I think is pretty straightforward that this preference would be required of charters and not DCPS.

I got that.

But then there seems to be this argument that this is disadvantaging one sector over another.

Is that the view of the PAC?

Is that your view?

Do you want to?

So, right now, again, there are two different answers that I would provide to you based on what hat I'm wearing.

But I think that the PAC is always very conscientious in making sure that we are not favoring either sector.

We, in our representation, in our response, in everything that we do.

We make sure that that so this legislation, I think, as it is written, and certainly as I have read it, and I think others have read it as well, leans towards providing a charter preference to those displaced students.

Now, mind you, within the lottery, um, can I interject there?

Sure.

Because I'm really trying to reconcile this.

So I see your average DCPS school as by right.

Yes.

In other words, there's a pre.

If you want to go to your SIT neighborhood school, you could just opt to go there.

Right.

And so I see that as parity of sorts versus giving an advantage to charters.

So as I understand the original intent of why we're here, right?

Is because we have a number of charter schools that have closed recently.

So those displaced students are charter school students.

Yes.

And the proposed solution is to then give those charter school students a preference to attend a charter school.

And so in the lottery, however, when it's opened for everyone, no matter which sector you're participating in, you have all things on the menu.

So the argument is that we are advantaging the students that would be leaving those closed schools by giving them a preference.

Above other people that have participated in the misunderstood.

I didn't quite interpret it, but thank you.

That is really helpful.

And then, Ms.

Herr, it's great to see you again.

I don't know if you're still with us, but I appreciated all your work back in the day with us on the state board of education.

But you referenced that we should make this like the equitable access preference, largely suggesting it should be optional.

I did do some um research, and it seems about roughly 30 or more schools in both sectors are using that equitable access uh preference, and it seems to be showing signs of success.

Are there any lessons learned from rolling out that preference that you would encourage us to be mindful of if we were to move forward with this legislation and in fact make this optional?

So I think one thing about the equitable access preference is people were deeply skeptical that it would work and that schools would take advantage of it.

Um, and I think it has proved to actually be a tool that has had an impact in that schools have taken advantage of.

So I think that's one lesson, is to sort of set aside that initial skepticism.

Um there's no reason that something that starts out as voluntary couldn't be modified later, but I think it's important to do that.

Oh, that's a radical idea that maybe we start making it optional and then mandate it later.

Well, I'm not saying mandate it later because I don't think it should be mandatory.

Um I do think that um there's a there's an opportunity for a pilot.

Um, there's an opportunity to learn from the equitable access preference, and there's an opportunity to consult stakeholders in the same way that the equitable access preference uh was deeply consultative and collaborative.

I think the danger here is you really want this legislation to really solve the problem for the students that you're trying to help.

Yes, and I do see some dangers that it might not, and that it could actually make some things a little bit worse.

That is fair, and there's so many folks on this uh panel that I respect and have deep admiration for.

So this is for anyone, um, specifically those connected to schools.

I will love your perspective here.

So I'm glad that the equitable access preference is showing success and there's greater uptick.

Um how do we move faster or how do we do more?

Uh if I were to ask it differently, um, I see the optional uptick as uh incremental approach to solving an equitable issue that we all acknowledge exists.

Um I don't know.

I don't know what I'm asking there, but I'm just throwing it out there like how do we how do we not look up two years from now if we were to move forward and make this optional and say, oh, no one actually opted for this optional preference, and our young people are still struggling to land in the right place after they have a sudden school closure.

I see Shannon Hodge jumped off of mute.

If I may, I I think there is a risk, uh, if you'll forgive me for my framing of this, in the framing of the question as making the preference itself the end.

And I think the end we're trying to actually get to is do parents have and families have a meaningful opportunity to participate in the lottery, and that school closures are done on a timeline and in a manner that allows full participation in the lottery.

I think this is intended to be a stopgap measure, but there may be other things in the way in place ahead of that.

So there could be a world in which no one uses the preference because the preference isn't needed.

And I think that's a little bit to my final point of my testimony.

I don't know that we know really the scope of the problem and whether or not what we are already doing works.

Is a lottery preference the answer to this problem and to this question, or are there other answers?

And so I would worry about elevating the preference itself to be the end that we're trying to achieve when I don't think that's what you're presenting.

Yeah, I would, or we could opt to not have sudden school closures, but I don't think we can have those guardrails to prevent that right now.

But if respectfully, if I could just push a little bit, and genuinely I want you to push back on me, as I know you will.

Um I know we know that there are families and communities that treat the lottery as an exercise.

They are huddling, they are meeting, they are they are studied on this, they are strategic, and I also know there are many young people in certain communities in Ward 5 and across the city that don't have that know how they aren't tapped into communities that are strategically leveraging the lottery in the same way.

And so I'm pushing when I hear you say, oh, just engage in the lottery.

We know that the kids that are most likely to end up in a school that suddenly closes, they are already starting at a disadvantaged spot to begin with.

I agree, but but I don't know that this bill will actually solve that problem.

Um, as a member of the Common Lottery Board, I've had the great benefit to sit in a number of conversations, seeing the My School DC team work through the data to look at parity across wards, to look at participation, who's engaging before the deadline versus after the deadline, and to know about their efforts to really get parity across wards in terms of participation.

I don't think this bill will change any of that.

If there is additional attention to be put into that, I think there are other ways to do that to make sure that students and families are participating early and with great deliberation.

But for example, in the case of Eagle, I think the benefit that this would have provided to those families would be a year out from the school closing, not in the year that the school closed.

And so again, I just worry about us making the preference the end when there may be other things we should be looking at to get either effectiveness of other preferences better or to increase meaningful participation or move meaningful participation up earlier.

I think PCSB is doing what it can to make sure that schools and boards make decisions earlier in ways that that meet the needs of students and families.

And I'm sure that Megan will speak more later in talking about from the My School DC side, are there things that are that are being done and could be done to increase meaningful participation of students and families in the lottery, but I don't know that this bill will change what you are aiming to change.

I hear you.

I know I'm over time.

Chelsea coffin, I saw you come on view.

Hopefully the chairman is in annoyed, but I'm gonna give you the floor so you can make your statement as well.

Thank you, Councilmember Parker.

I'll I'll be brief.

I was just going to say on a lot along the lines of who will offer this.

I think it is important to think about the incentives that schools have to offer this preference.

I think giving adequate resources to um to kind of to get students up to speed if they are coming from a closed school and also talking to the PCSE team later, not to put them on the spot, but to see if there are other types of policies they can enact.

I think along the lines of accountability to consider when a school does absorb a large population from a closing school, um, thinking about just incentives for schools to serve these students in the way that they deserve.

Fair enough.

Well, thank you all for your testimony.

Thank you, Councilmember Parker.

Thank you to two of you who are here in person, and the rest of you online.

Thank you very much.

I'm gonna turn to the government witnesses.

Melody Sampson, Chief School Performance Officer with the DC Public Chartered School Board.

And Megan Doe, who's executive director of my school DC officer, the state superintendent of education.

I called two names.

I got three people.

Who's first?

Um Melody Sampson.

Yes.

Good afternoon, Chairman Mendelson, members of the committee and staff.

My name is Melody Sampson.

I'm the Chief School Performance Officer at the DC Public Charter School Board.

And I'm joined today by my teammate Hannah Cusano.

She directs the sector planning and compliance team.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the lottery preference for families impacted by school closures amendment act of 2026.

Thank you also to Council Members Parker and Fruman for their focus on charter sector stability, which has improved significantly as the sector has evolved and matured.

Indeed, over the past 15 years, charter school closures have fallen to an average of about 1.6 per year.

As we celebrate 30 years of public charter schools in Washington, DC, this progress reflects a sector that has grown stronger over time and continues to provide families across the district with quality educational options and meaningful choices for their students.

None of these closures has been easy, and a few have been particularly painful.

As a result of some hard-earned lessons, DC PCSB staff works directly with impacted families to help them understand enrollment timelines, school options, and available resources.

We continue to improve how we how and when we show up.

Last year we committed to making charter evaluation decisions and a time frame that better supports families.

This year that meant announcing the only school closure before EdFest and before the lottery application window opened, allowing families time to plan.

No doubt more can be done for students attending closing schools.

DC PCSB has testified for many years in support of an optional enrollment preference for students leaving a closed school.

That is still our position.

Unfortunately, the bill before you would go much further by establishing a mandatory preference, which we do not support.

Under the current framework, public charter schools have full discussion on whether to offer preferences, which ones, and in what ranked order.

This enables each school to make decisions in the context of its individual model, community, and mission.

The bill before you would up-end the successful approach and instead require every public charter school to adopt this preference.

We see no reason to treat this preference differently from any other existing preference, and so we respectfully urge you to amend this bill by making the preference discretionary.

Doing so will strike a better balance between student support and school capacity.

Let me close again by thanking this committee for its focus on stability for students, particularly those impacted by closures, and for the opportunity to share our thoughts on this legislation.

As always, our team is committed to working with you on outcomes that center students and that promote a more excellent and equitable public charter school sector.

I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Good afternoon, Chairman Mendelson, members of the Committee of the Whole, and staff.

My name is Megan Doe.

I am the executive director of the My School D.C.

Lottery, which is housed within the Office of the State Superintendent of Education, or Aussie.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on Bill 26592, the lottery preference for families impacted by School Closures Amendment Act of 2026.

This bill, if approved, would create a new mandatory lottery preference for students applying to charter schools who attended a school that closed in the preceding school year or that is closing in the current school year.

And so doing this legislation aims to ease the educational disruptions that occur when a school is closed and prevent the enrollment challenges that occurred when Eagle Academy Public Charter School was closed just before the start of the 2024-25 school year.

This is a worthy objective.

However, MySchool DC recommends that council not advance this legislation for several reasons.

In my testimony, I will provide a brief overview of the history and purpose of the lottery, outline my concerns with this bill's circumvention of the deliberative process used for introducing new preferences, highlight the changes that the public charter school board has taken to prevent the circumstances that led to Eagle's untimely closure, elevate the concerns of MySchool DC's Parent Advisory Council, and detail specific concerns with the bill's drafted text.

The MySchool DC lottery was established in 2013 to provide a unified application to traditional public and public charter schools in the district and to make it easier for families to navigate and access DC's many educational opportunities.

Prior to the lottery's establishment, DCPS had a lottery for out of boundary spaces and all pre-K3 and pre-K4 spaces, plus a separate application process for their selective high schools.

In addition, each public charter school also developed its own application lottery and timeline.

Today, nearly 75% of DC students apply to school through the Common Lottery, which allows families to apply to up to 12 schools at the same time.

The lottery's randomized algorithm works to match both students to the schools they want most and maximize the number of students who are matched with the school they choose.

The common lottery system is a trusted and vital component of DC's educational ecosystem, serving 99% of public schools each year.

This strong participation rate is contingent on maintaining LEA's trust in the integrity and fairness of the lottery process.

That is why we have prioritized stakeholder engagement at all stages of the lottery's development.

MySchool DC has an established process for vetting new preferences before they are incorporated into the lottery.

We carefully assess the impact a proposed preference will have on the lottery's outcomes, and we seek stakeholder input on the definition and structure of the preference before deciding on whether or how to move it forward with incorporating it.

Public charter schools currently have nine different lottery preferences to choose from.

Three of those preferences have been added to the MySchool DC lottery since its launch the special education preference, the military preference, and the equitable access preference for at-risk students that's been mentioned several times today.

All three of these preferences were conceived by charter schools, designed in consultation with MySchool DC and introduced and adopted after thorough engagement with our partners.

For example, before the equitable access preference was enacted through legislation in 2021, MySchool DC staff conducted a comprehensive research study to evaluate the impact the preference would have on the lottery and how it would need to be implemented to have the maximum desired effect.

MySchool DC also convened multiple stakeholder work groups to solicit input on how the preference should be defined and implemented.

In contrast, this proposal was introduced without consultation with lottery staff, our parent advisory council, the Common Lottery Board, Aussie, or the Office of the Deputy Mayor of Education.

MySchool DC strongly believes that council should not pass legislation that changes the way the lottery operates without engaging in this important deliberative process.

Furthermore, there's not a pressing need to move this legislation forward.

Since Eagle's closure, PCSB has made several changes to address the conditions that led to its abrupt and untimely closure.

They have strengthened their charter monitoring process and partnered with Aussie to better align the charter review process with the lottery cycle.

As a result, PCSB is now conducting charter reviews and renewals earlier, enabling schools to make and announce future operating decisions before the lottery runs.

These changes help cultivate a level playing field by enabling parents of children in closing schools to enter the lottery at the same time as all other parents.

In addition, PCSB updated its school reorganization policy last week after consultation with national experts and local leaders.

This policy was designed to provide consistency and transparency when LEAs pursue a merger or when one LEA seeks to acquire another.

We will learn more about the impact of this policy as it is implemented in coming years, but it seems likely that it will support more predictability for school communities and address some of the reasons why schools close.

ASI is currently unclear how cases of merger or acquisition would and should be contemplated for the school closure preference under the proposed legislation.

For that reason, further data analysis and stakeholder engagement on this issue are necessary.

Hurried adoption of this preference may also result in unintended negative consequences and impede the thoughtful progress that is being made on school closures.

This would undermine the bill's stated goal of increasing educational stability and maximizing equitable school choice options for families.

In addition, MySchool DC's Parent Advisory Council, the PAC, has advised that we not adopt this preference.

The PAC is comprised of volunteers from eight different wards of the district who represent both DCPS and public charter schools.

As trusted advisors to MySchool DC and the Common Lottery Board, their insights ensure that lottery policies and processes truly reflect the needs and priorities of DC families.

The PAC opposes this legislation, reasoning that this preference would undermine the fairness, equity, and establish rules of the lottery.

They note that the proposal privileges charter schools over DCPS and sets a precedent that would erode uniform standards for all schools.

They also warn that the bill could create the appearance of a new entitlement to charter school seats and disrupt the carefully maintained balance and integrity of the lottery.

Citing past decisions and established guidelines, they contend that the legislation would undo important safeguards, undermine public trust, and negatively impact the citywide enrollment system that families rely on.

They outlined their concerns in a letter to the council, which I have attached to my written testimony for reference, and it would be unprecedented for DC to adopt a lottery preference over the opposition of the PAC.

In addition to these concerns, I have several specific flags with the bill's drafted language.

First, and of critical importance, the legislation treats the proposed school closure preference differently than every other lottery preference.

This bill mandates that all participating schools offer the preference.

Participating charter schools, excuse me, offer the preference.

This disrupts the district's long-standing tradition of providing LEAs discretion to determine which preferences to apply based on their unique needs and capacity.

A core condition for the sustainability of the lottery itself is its maintenance of respect for the individualized needs of its participating schools.

In recognition that not all schools are alike, the lottery was carefully structured to provide maximum flexibility to LEAs with respect to their inputs.

And at the same time, it sets strict guidelines on how lottery outputs are acted upon and recorded to ensure fairness to applicants.

This includes allowing LEAs to decide which preference to apply, in what order, and how many seats to offer in each grade.

Stripping LEAs of that authority limits their ability to tailor the lottery to their individual enrollment needs, which may diminish the lottery's value to its participating schools.

Second, this bill fails to mirror the process used for the three other most recently passed or additional charter school lottery preferences, which require LEAs to apply for the preference.

If this is the intent, it may aligning these processes may add a protective measure to increase educational stability.

And finally, the text is unclear as to whether it would allow students affected by the school closure to maintain this preference for two consecutive years.

If this is the intent, it may further incentivize enrollment instability through additional school transitions.

These textual concerns exemplify why we recommend proposed preferences go through MySchool DC vetting and engagement processes prior to council introduction.

In closing, I want to emphasize that I appreciate the intent of this legislation.

It is critically important that the district manage school closures responsibly and minimize the effects of such closures on enrolled families.

As the executive director of the MySchool DC lottery, my top priorities are preserving the lottery's fairness and integrity for all DC families and ensuring strong LEA participation in the lottery by protecting their autonomy to meet their individual enrollment and capacity needs.

By circumventing the established process for community engagement and preference evaluation, this legislation does not align itself with those core values.

I urge council not to move the bill forward.

I am pleased to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you each of you for your testimony.

A few questions.

Are you testifying for the mayor or ASI, or just as executive director is the My School DC Lottery?

I am testifying on on behalf of Aussie in my role as executive director of the My School DC lottery.

A couple people have referenced that perhaps the impetus for this pill was timing of the closure of Eagle Academy.

There have been a couple closures since then, maybe more than two.

Um and the timing was in time for parents to participate in the lottery.

That timing.

That timing is uh intentional.

We certainly learned a lot from the abrupt eagle closure and the other closures since then.

Um, those have been also relinquishments, but they were timely in that they occurred before families had to make school choice decisions for the following school year.

Again, coincidence or intentional?

That wasn't it was purposeful.

It was all of it was cognizant of the enrollment timeline that My School DC puts forward.

So how could we have confidence since that was done?

I mean, I think that's good, that was intentional.

But acting intentionally today doesn't mean necessarily acting the same intention, let's say five years from now.

How could we have confidence that policy will continue?

Those were learning lessons and the public record exists beyond uh the tenure of my lifetime at PCSB or anyone else's at PCSB.

Um so the the track record is there, it tells us these are the decision points that our board or that a school's board needs to make so that families are well positioned to navigate school choice in the future.

Um, but we do have beyond just that um institutional awareness.

We do have policies and practices, protocols for our review and renewal uh process that outlines when it is optimal to engage in those high-stakes decisions so that families have enough time to make their own school choice.

Thank you.

I may have some more questions, but I'm gonna turn to colleagues.

Councilmember Parker.

Thank you.

Um I do have a few questions.

Um I want to acknowledge that we've been joined by my Ward 3 colleague, Council Member Ferman, who uh was a co-introducer on this legislation.

Uh I think it's important to keep coming back to the why, why did we introduce this bill?

And for the record, there were many conversations with advocates, school partners, allies.

I can name a few, some maybe in this room right now.

And so it is not accurate to simply say, oh, you know, uh the authors of this bill went into a closet and generated it without consultation with anyone, although I will acknowledge uh we did not consult with ASI or the deputy mayor or my school DC.

I think that is fair.

Um the reason for this bill is because some of our young people are disadvantaged in the lottery process when there is a sudden school closure.

And to the chairman's point, there is a lot of mention of Eagle Academy because I think that is the most egregious example lately.

Uh, but any time there's a closure, uh, I think families are disrupted, and there are pain points in both sectors.

DCPS is, I remember uh I think it's um now I'm met uh Washington Met, and there was a lot of dust up there, and kids were scrambling trying to figure out their next placement.

So this isn't just a charter sector issue, although it I think the closures are happening more routinely on the charter side.

I digress.

In terms of the lottery preferences that have been cited, the equitable access, I another popular one is the sibling preference, and there's others.

Do we have numbers on how many schools are adhering to those preferences or utilizing those preferences?

And if so, can you cite maybe the top three that schools are using?

Yes, we c is that directed at me.

Sure.

Uh, in order to administer the lottery, we collect that information from our schools every year.

They tell us which preferences they want to apply in the lottery.

Um, I would say um so we could get you, we can certainly get you that information.

Um, offhand, I believe it's safe to say that the most common one applied by 58% of our schools as the top priority preference is the sibling preference priority.

Um, but it's important to mention that not all schools, of course, are offering the same preferences.

That is the choice.

Some of the preferences are only able to be enacted by um by charter schools, sub are only enabled to be enacted by DCPS schools, and there are a few four preferences at present that can be applied by all schools.

So, and do you know where the equitable access um preference is percentage-wise?

I don't know offhand percentage-wise, but I can tell you how many schools are actually currently implementing that process.

I mean, at present we have 18 LEAs that are have opted in to adopt that preference, and um I believe that is now covering a total of 64 schools across those LEAs.

That number has grown over time, as the you know, in its five years of implementation, so it has grown, but again, it's not um it's certainly not offered by every by every school.

And I based on those numbers, it just and it's clear there are some schools that I'm assuming don't offer any preferences.

You just apply and you get in and or you don't get in.

I mean, I can speak to again, even the most common preference.

There is at least one LEA at present, Amia Angelo, that has opted not to um, they are actually they're interesting because they are actually just opted in this year to apply the equitable process uh preference, uh, equitable access preference for the first time, that they are one of the few schools that is currently not um offering the sibling um sibling offered preference.

So it's always it is very intentionally designed that that should be an LEA decision.

And and um one more question here.

So I was talking with Shannon Hodge uh in our uh exchange earlier, the elephant in the room that many of us know that there are certain families, often well resourced families that know how to navigate the lottery system.

Uh in Ward 5, there are entire parties, join the Zoom, we're gonna have snacks, or maybe we're gonna meet up in the park and we're gonna talk and we're gonna figure out our strategy.

Then there is other families that they're lucky to even know the deadlines of the lottery system.

So, what is my school DC doing to make the lottery system more equitable?

Given that we're what I'm hearing in the testimony is don't move this legislation, which is an attempt to make things more equitable because we have the systems in place to move in that direction already.

Yes.

No, thank you for that question.

It's certainly something that we contemplate on the regular and take very seriously in the way that we administer the lottery, and to your specific question about what we are doing to encourage more equitable access and uh participation, increased participation across all wards in the district.

That has been uh a very concerted goal that we've had.

Um it's been an annual goal that we have every year based on some study that we did have that showed us that some of our most uh disadvantaged residents were not getting their application in by the lottery deadline.

Um, as um one of several strategies that we put in place to try to address that is um uh very much increasing our outreach efforts uh to particular uh particular wards, using our data to identify we actually have uh prioritized wards um wards five, wards seven, and eight are all prioritized at present um to get more increased messaging.

We do phone banking and we use our field team to do uh before the lottery deadline to contact those families.

We've actually also developed an MOA with DHS, whereby we are now informed about which families are qualifying for TANF and SNAP benefits, so that we can um do more directed and targeted outreach to those families and all of our wards across the district to notify them about the lottery deadlines and do much more intensive, again, out uh outreach, messaging, phone banking, targeted messages, emails.

Um, so we I would say we've we've instituted probably over the last five years since we've made that one of our strategic goals annually each year for the lottery.

Um we've been putting those into effect, and we have seen um the uh the dial start to shift.

We are seeing more applications coming in before the lottery deadline, many more than we did in previous and previous years.

Understood.

And there was a comment earlier that this type of legislation would advantage a kid whose schools suddenly close.

And while I can see that in one sense, I mean, for you to be up-ended and have your school close, I think it would be hard to square the argument that that somehow we're putting our finger on the scale for you.

I think the most disadvantaged kids should be advantaged, but I digress.

Uh I see my clock ticking.

I do want to ask one more question, and I'll send this to our charter board friends.

The DC policy center expressed concern earlier in their testimony that the number of charter school closing has the potential to increase given the charter board shift to the ASPIRE framework.

Um I'm noting that wasn't your testimony, but that's what we heard there.

And then at the same time, I'm hearing from our friends at my school DC, oh, actually, uh, the charter board has already taken steps to address the failures around Eagle Academy.

Square those two things for me.

Is the concern on one end unwarranted, or like those seem to be opposing ideas that we've heard in one hearing today.

If Chelsea Coffin will allow it, I will sort of interpret uh her public comment today uh regarding the instance of an academic accountability and the impact that that has on school closure.

So her uh accounting was an acknowledgement that PCSB took a relaxed approach in terms of its academic accountability reporting during the pandemic, and as we were developing Aspire, the uh revised PMF performance management framework.

And so I think that her observation there was just acknowledging that in taking a pause in that academic accountability, it meant that we were not publicly discussing uh schools' performance publicly.

Yes.

And so that then had an impact on whether PCSB was moving forward with closures.

So a lot of that was driven by the pause that we took from accountability based off of the pandemic and developing that new accountability system.

I would not say necessarily that now that we've got our accountability system back online and we are discussing school uh performance across the charter portfolio, that doesn't necessarily mean that that in and of itself will lead to more closures, but it does absolutely um shine more light into how schools are performing in the charter sector.

And how many schools are on your financial watch list?

I forget what it's called.

Uh so we've got a financial monitoring list, and I can I can't.

Because that is another factor here.

It's not just being closed for performance reasons.

A board could uh give up their charter because they are insolvent or they're not gonna be able to make payroll.

Um so all this to say that there are any number of reasons why charters or any school might suddenly close.

Um, and so if you could follow up with that, I I do want to be mindful of time, but I also want to thank you all for your testimony.

Sure.

Thank you.

You had some time left, I think.

A couple seconds.

No, actually, I was a little over.

I was hoping you didn't notice.

Characteristic.

Um Councilmember Fruman.

Thank you very much.

Uh I'm gonna stay on that topic sort of generally for a second.

Given where we are in terms of existing capacity in the dual system, and given where we are in terms of birth rates and the projections of, if anything, shrinking populations.

So we have a lot of excess capacity and shrinking populations.

Not asking you to name the schools, but do you anticipate school closures in the coming years?

In the coming years, I will stress that that's plural.

I, and say that it's possible.

Um, I wouldn't necessarily say that it's likely, but it's certainly possible.

Uh it's likely.

And in candor, it's and this I know this is the skunk at the garden party.

It is necessary because the way in which we're funding schools, to the extent that we have many, many underenrolled schools, it is more expensive to serve each individual child, and we're devoting more dollars to buildings and to administration than to teaching, and it would be irrational for us not to look at how do we rationalize our capacity.

We're facing giant financial challenges.

We cannot run a dual system.

I'm all for the charter sector, I'm all for DCPS, but it has to be done with some economic rationality to it, and that's not the world we're in today.

And in a world of shrinking birth rates, we need to get real about this.

So, when Zachary talks about, you know, the why around this, the why may differ between the co-introducers.

To me, I think the world we're in is we are certain, need to have school closures, and we need to make sure that we take care of those families.

And so, if that is a reality, and I really urge you, really urge you to think about whether or not that's a reality, then what do we do to make it easier to get to rationality and protect the folks in the schools who might be harmed by the closure?

And so that's why I supported this legislation.

I think I made a mistake in that it should have been that the preference would apply in the charter sector and on the DCPS side, but we are going to have cohorts of families.

Okay, let's do that.

Um we are gonna have cohorts of families who are gonna be in schools that are that close underneath them, and then what is it that we do to help them?

What what things would that's the the animus behind this is how do we deal with a for me, how do we deal with a coming reality in a way that is fair and helpful to those?

I mean, maybe you don't accept that that's the coming reality, but if it were, if it were very likely that we were gonna see closures in the coming years, what would you do to try to help and protect those families?

What steps would you take?

If these aren't the right steps, what are the right steps?

I'll ask each of you.

We take very seriously the projections, DC Policy Center and the DME have been partners to us as we have considered how we approach sector planning as an agency.

And that has given way to the reorganization policy.

You might have heard previous staff refer to it as the mergers and acquisitions policy.

Um our board just approved that last week.

Um, and I think that it will have a meaningful impact on the transformation in the sector that could mean um LEA's combining forces as opposed to closing all together and creating a much softer landing, a much easier transition for families and educators in that school.

Um we also have a robust practice of engaging with families if it does come down to a school closure need where we uh have a whole team of family engagement coordinators who are working one-on-one with families to support them in their placement for the next school year.

I can also let my teammate Hannah Cusineau elaborate on that.

Her team leads both of those work streams.

Hello, my name is Hannah Cusno.

I'm the director of sector planning and compliance at the DC Public Charter School Board.

As Melody shared, when a school closes, our team of family engagement coordinators engage directly with those families so that they first understand their responsibility to find an enrollment option for their students for the next school year, and that they understand the options available to them.

We take a sector agnostic approach.

We get to know what the families value, how they approach their decision making, and um we answer their questions and make sure that they feel supported in this closure process.

In a certain sense, I hear a little bit of a tension between your answer and the other answer.

Well, you say that you take a sector agnostic approach, and I think you were saying that the mergers and acquisitions policy.

So, I mean, I do think that it is important that it be sector agnostic, that it not be then if there's a closure, then the part of the goal of the public charter school board is to maintain market share as opposed to finding the option that would be the best for the children who are who are in gonna be in transition.

I how does that express itself through the work that you do?

And how does it express itself through the work that you do?

Also share that um I was the I worked very diligently on the school reorganization policy.

We did receive public comment inquiring about the applicability of that policy to situations that you're referring to that are cross-sector.

Uh this policy scope does not opine on that.

That's not to say that those types of consolidations cannot happen.

Uh they just wouldn't be overseen by this policy, which is under the jurisdiction of the DC public charter school board, but they are allowable and there's a precedent for them.

And the mergers and acquisitions policy, any contemplation inside the public charter school board of schools migrating from the charter sector into the DCPS sector, if that might make sense for the school in that setting, how are you guys thinking about that sort of thing?

So to Hannah's point, um, the mergers and the school reorganization policy doesn't speak to that, but there is a history of that transfer in DC.

Um there have been there's been at least one DCPS school that converted into a charter school and one charter school that converted into a DCPS school.

So there is a track record for that, and um I certainly would be curious to see something like that play out in a more contemporary setting.

All right.

Very helpful.

So the point that I'm trying to make, which is a point that I've been making for a dozen years, is that we have to have rationality in the way in which we are seeing our dual system.

And the and we have overcapacity today, and it's expensive, and we don't have a lot of dollars.

So I really hope that we can be putting our heads together to think about how is it that we get to greater rationality?

And so then how do we deal with that?

How do we help the families that is there are going to be subject to that?

So thank you for your testimony, and I'll turn it back to the chairman.

Thank you, Councilmember Fruin.

I don't have any further questions for you all.

So I'm going to bring this hearing to a close.