Testimony by Richard Pohlman for the Hearing on the Critical At-Risk Weight (B23–365) before Committee of the Whole and Committee on Education

March 10, 2020

Thank you Chairman Mendelson, Chairman Grosso, Councilmember White, and staff for the opportunity to share our thoughts and opinions about Bill B23–365, which would create a Critical At-Risk Weight in the Uniform Per Student Funding Formula (UPSFF) to supplement funds for schools with more than 70% of students identified as at-risk.

I want to start by saying that FOCUS supports the intent of this legislation. We thank Councilmember White and his team for working to address the clear needs of our schools serving students with the highest needs. We echo the comments from our charter schools today that call for additional investments for schools serving high percentages of at-risk students. These schools face different challenges and deserve equitable supports to ensure they meet the needs of students.

As you consider this legislation, we believe it is important to consider the following short and longer-term items:

• The proposed “critical at-risk” weight must be in addition to an increase in the at-risk weight. Currently, the at-risk weight for all students is drastically underfunded and it is imperative that this legislation not be seen as an alternative to solving this funding issue for all at-risk students. In 2013, the Deputy Mayor for Education published an independent adequacy study regarding the sufficiency of education funding and provided recommendations for adequate funding levels. This study recommended a weight of .37 for at-risk students more than six years ago. Assuming the Mayor’s 4% increase to the UPSFF for next fiscal year, raising the weight to the 2013 recommended level would result in an additional $1,653 per student. We must raise this weight in addition to creating funding for those schools serving a critical proportion of at-risk students.
• We must make similar increases to support Alternative and Adult Schools. Under DC Code 2905.01, alternative and adult schools do not receive the at-risk weight. It is imperative that as this body considers increases to at-risk funds that it also consider funding increases for alternative and adult schools — especially those adult schools serving opportunity youth. Due to a recent regulatory change from OSSE two such schools, LAYC and Maya Angelou Academy, are facing a loss of 15–20 percent of total funding. This at the time when we are systemically dis-investing in other alternative programs in the City. This must stop. We must find a way to ensure funding stability for these, and other, school programs serving opportunity youth.
• The current at-risk terminology and definition deserve examination. We believe it is important to evaluate the “at-risk” terminology and definition during Fiscal Year 2021. In working with families, students, and schools we routinely hear that the term “at-risk” is stigmatizing and demeaning to many. Additionally, there are underserved populations of students that are currently not included in the definition. Specifically, students that are parenting, those that are CFSA involved (but not yet in permanent care), and those new to the country. Finally, it is important in this study to also consider the percentage at which a supplemental “critical” weight should be added and how we can apply safe harbor provisions to avoid any potential year-over-year funding cliff for schools (e.g. what happens if you drop to 68% one year from 72%).

It is also important to note that there is not a one-size-fits-all answer for our schools serving high at-risk populations. Schools need funding to plan and support whole-school models that offer flexibility not found in other schools. They also need funds to augment mental health services offered by government agencies in and out of school. Finally, as noted in testimony regarding the other bill under consideration today, schools with wealthier student populations often have the support of parent organizations that ensure schools have access to funds so that important positions like librarians are not deprioritized. Our schools with high numbers of at-risk students need the same and providing a critical at-risk weight is a potential solution to these inequities.

Thank you again for your consideration and we look forward to working with you on this bill.