OPA Education Report No. 17-01

8/7/2019 OPA Education Report No. 17-01

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/opa-education-report-no-17-01 1/75

Council of the District of Columbia

Office of Policy Analysis




Office of Policy Analysis

Vincent C. GrayChairman-At-Large

Carol Schwartz At LargeDavid A. Catania At Large

Phil Mendelson At LargeKwame R. Brown At LargeJim Graham Ward 1Jack Evans Ward 2

Mary M. Cheh Ward 3Muriel Bowser Ward 4Harry Thomas, Jr. Ward 5Tommy Wells Ward 6Yvette M. Alexander Ward 7Marion Barry Ward 8

Council of the District of ColumbiaOffice of Policy Analysis

January 4, 2008Report 17-01

Education Reform in the District of Columbia:The Modified Role of the Council of the Districtof Columbia



Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1

Introduction 4

Background 6

Historical Review 7

The Role of the Council of the District of Columbia: Oversight 9

Governance Modifications Set Forth in PERAA 13

The Executive Office of the Mayor 15

The State Board of Education 17

The Chancellor 19

Department of Education 20

Office of the State Superintendent of Education 22

Office of the Ombudsman for Public Education 26

Interagency Collaboration and Services Integration Commission 28

Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization 29

Public Charter School Accountability Reform 30

Substantive Oversight Opportunities 31

Comparison to Other State and Urban School District Governance Structures 37

The Role of Community Participation 42

Required Resources for Effective Oversight 43

The Role of the Council of the District of Columbia: Budget & Finance 44

Setting the Agenda and Identifying Policy Priorities 46

The Role of the Council of the District of Columbia: Survey of Policy Areas 48

Conclusion 61

Appendix 64

Oversight Objectives and Setting Policy Priorities 64

Mandated Reports by the Public Education Reform Amendment Act of 2007 68



Index of Tables and Figures

Table 1: Enrollment and FY 2008 Budget Requests 6

Table 2: Selected Characteristics of Comparison Cities 37

Table 3: Comparisons of State K-12 Governance Structures 37

Table 4: Overview of Current Governance Structures 41

Table 5: Comparison of the Agency Approach and Policy Theme Models of Oversight 47

Table 6: A Survey of Possible Policy Areas 60

Table 7: Reports to Council Mandated By PERAA 68

Table 8: Other Obligations and Reports to Council 70

Figure 1: Modified Public Education Governance Structure after PERAA 2007 14

Figure 2: Oversight and Monitoring Relationships after PERAA 15

Figure 3: Boston’s Education Governance Structure 39

Figure 4: Chicago’s Education Governance Structure 39

Figure 5: New York City’s Education Governance Structure 40

Figure 6: Modified Public Education Governance Structure after PERAA 2007 64

Figure 7: An Agency Approach to Oversight 65

Figure 8: A Thematic Approach to Oversight 66

Figure 9: Suggested Models of an Oversight Timeline 67



Executive Summary

In the District of Columbia, the impetus for education reform derives from inadequate studentachievement, elevated levels of adult illiteracy, and the deteriorating conditions of many publicschool buildings. Consequently, on January 3, 2007, concurrent with the Council of the District

of Columbia’s commitment to improving education in the District of Columbia, the Chairman of the Council abolished the Committee on Education and amended the Council’s Rules of Organization and Procedure to place education matters under the Committee of the Whole. Thiswould allow each Councilmember to have a major role in reform and oversight activities.Subsequently, on January 5, 2007, the Mayor, responding to repeated calls for increasedaccountability over an ailing (and failing) school system, proposed the “Public EducationReform Amendment Act of 2007.” On April 23, 2007, after holding numerous public hearings,the Council approved a modified form of the “Public Education Reform Amendment Act of 2007” (PERAA). PERAA became law on June 12, 2007 after Congressional review. PERAA,effectuating a mayoral takeover of the District of Columbia public school system, substantiallyaltered the educational paradigm in the District of Columbia by redistributing powers and

authority concerning education.

Historically, while the Council of the District of Columbia exercised oversight over the Districtof Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) system, it was not the central policymaking entity oneducation matters. This role was traditionally maintained by the District of Columbia Board of Education, pursuant to Title 38 of the D.C. Official Code. With the Board of Education elevatedto the state level, a review of PERAA reveals that the Council’s oversight role has expandeddramatically, as has its ability to control policy priorities through budget modifications andexpanded legislative power. These powers permit the Council to take a more proactive leadershiprole in advocating for improved student achievement and better outcomes for children, adults,and families.

The legislation enacted by the Council established DCPS as a cabinet-level, subordinate agencyunder the Mayor; established a Department of Education, headed by a Deputy Mayor for Education; the Office of the State Superintendent of Education; the Office of Public EducationFacilities Modernization; the Office of the Ombudsman for Public Education; and theInteragency Collaboration and Services Integration Commission. Thus, PERAA enlarged thebureaucracy regarding public education. This expansion may complicate decision-making as theroles and lines of authority and accountability are not clearly defined for all entities.Consequently, the inherent oversight role of the Council has also expanded. It may be necessaryfor the Council to review its capacity to handle these additional oversight responsibilities.

PERAA sought to increase accountability over public education and it remains a crucial issue.As PERAA rearranged the organizational boxes and consolidated authority, the public may havedifficulty holding its elected officials accountable because authority is dispersed throughout theexecutive branch. For example, while PERAA authorizes DCPS as a cabinet-level, subordinateagency to the Mayor, DCPS is monitored by the Office of the State Superintendent, another executive agency. A substantial criticism of the former paradigm was that DCPS, as both a localeducation agency and a state education agency, was forced to monitor itself. However, under PERAA, the Mayor’s progress on education will be measured by another municipal agency.



2

Only the Council remains as an independent body and therefore the Council has theresponsibility of providing effective oversight. Therefore, a measure of accountability for education is removed under the proposed changes because the Mayor is in charge of bothoperations and oversight simultaneously. Furthermore, PERAA may not address the basicreasons for the school district’s dismal student achievement or fix weak instructional practices in

the schools. Therefore, the Council should expect to play a continuing role in education reform,requiring the executive and legislative to further define their roles. The relationship between theexecutive and legislative branches will certainly evolve as reform efforts continue.

In a comparison with other mayoral takeovers, the District of Columbia varies substantially fromBoston, Chicago, and New York. For example, the Boston, Chicago, and New York schooldistricts, along with most other school districts nationwide, are monitored by a state educationagency, a separate state-level entity. The geopolitical arrangement of the District of Columbiaspurred a unique development where both the state and local education agencies are under asingle authority: the Mayor. Therefore, how the executive resolves conflicts between educationagencies remains unclear.

In addition, community input, and to a lesser extent, the idea of participatory governance, is avalued commodity and has played a substantial role in education reform in the District of Columbia. Nonetheless, the forms of community input are limited by PERAA. Currently, onlythree formal methods of community input exist: through the State Board of Education, theCouncil, and the Ombudsman. However, these entities all provide entry points on specific topicsand not for general inquiry and comment on overall education reform. Consequently, the Councilwill need to decide how community input is received and utilized in decision-making. There aremultiple opportunities for collective and individual Councilmember activity in the creation of input mechanisms.

The Council has also gained new powers over the DCPS budget. Upon submission of the FY2009 budget, the Council will have the ability to reallocate funds on a program level, whichpermits assessment of mayoral priorities and Council reprioritization, placing significant power in the legislature to influence the District’s education system. Nonetheless, PERAA did notstreamline the budget process to any measurable degree, reduce layers of budget approval or interference, or make it easier to align instructional goals with financial resources. On thecontrary, it may cost the city substantially more money just to transfer powers and authority andimplement reform.

Nevertheless, concomitant with the Mayor’s authority over the District of Columbia’s educationsystem, the Council has multiple opportunities to support the Mayor’s initiatives or alternativelyshape education policy through legislative action. Likewise, beyond oversight and modificationof the budget, the Council may legislate on issues otherwise not addressed. These policy areasinclude career and technical education, community schools, discipline, literacy, adult education,nutrition, parental involvement, universal pre-kindergarten, and school improvement, amongothers. Due to the unique geopolitical structure of the District of Columbia, whereas the Districtfunctions as both a city and a state, PERAA provides a tremendous opportunity for the Councilto pursue progressive and proactive education reform.



3

The Office of Policy Analysis recommends that the Council create and adopt a coherent,comprehensive oversight agenda to address legislative priorities. An agenda organized by policytheme would enhance the Council’s ability to be proactive in education reform within the Districtof Columbia. Ultimately, it would facilitate the Council’s role in influencing education reform.

In summary, this briefing paper exists as a primer to the new role of the Council of the District of Columbia in public education, to illustrate possible areas of influence after the enactment of PERAA, and represents a selection of policy issues that members of the Council of the Districtof Columbia may select as policy priorities.



4

Introduction

In the District of Columbia, education reform derives from inadequate student achievement,elevated levels of adult illiteracy, and the poor condition of public school buildings. On January3, 2007, signifying the Council of the District of Columbia’s commitment to improving

education in the District of Columbia, the Chairman of the Council abolished the Committee onEducation and amended the Council’s Rules of Organization and Procedure to place educationmatters before the Committee of the Whole. This would allow each Councilmember to have amajor role in reform and oversight activities. Previously, the Council of the District of Columbiaexercised oversight over the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) system; however itwas not the central policymaking entity on matters pertaining to DCPS. That role wastraditionally held by the Board of Education pursuant to Title 38, Section 102 of the District of Columbia Official Code.1

Therefore, on January 5, 2007, the Mayor, responding to repeated calls for increasedaccountability over an ailing (and failing) school system, proposed the “Public Education

Reform Amendment Act of 2007.” On April 23, 2007, after holding numerous public hearings,the Council approved a modified form of the “Public Education Reform Amendment Act of 2007” (PERAA). PERAA became law on June 12, 2007 after Congressional review.

PERAA substantially altered the educational landscape in the District of Columbia andredistributed powers and authority regarding education and the provision of services to childrenand adults. It also transferred the management of the District of Columbia Public Schools(DCPS) from the Board of Education to the Mayor by establishing DCPS as a subordinate,cabinet-level agency. Likewise, many traditional roles have been modified during thegovernance change to reflect new responsibilities in an effort to achieve comprehensive schoolreform and increased accountability. Whereas Title V of the “Board of Education Rules” onceclaimed that “the Board of Education shall be directly accountable to the citizens of the Districtof Columbia for the provision of public elementary and secondary education and the operation of the public schools,”2 it applies, clearly or not, to many more entities within the District of Columbia.

A review of PERAA reveals:

• The Council of the District of Columbia’s oversight role has expanded dramatically;• The Council of the District of Columbia, following its review of the annually submitted

budget for DCPS, may modify the funding and other resource levels by a 2/3 majorityvote. Previously, the Council was limited to simple approval of the budget plan; and

• The Council of the District of Columbia will no longer be restricted by the Home RuleAct from exercising legislative authority, relative to matters that pertain to DCPS, should

1 DC ST 1981 § 31-102 , http://weblinks.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?DB=DC%2DST%2DTOC%3BSTADCTOC

&DocName=DCCODES38%2D102&FindType=W&AP=&fn=_top&rs=WEBL7.09&vr=2.0&spa=DCC-

1000&trailtype=26, Accessed 1 October 2007.2 5 DCMR §300.4, 1997, http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Title%205/chapter00006.htm?f=templates$fn=main-nf.htm$3.0#JD_Chapter3, Accessed 24 September 2007.



5

the Council determine additional remedies are necessary by legislative act (prior policyinitiatives were limited and may continue to be at the discretion of the Council).

Before passage of PERAA, the Council was responsible for:

• Approval of the DCPS budget;

• Approval of the Master Facilities Plan;• Approval of contracts over $1 million;• Approval of revisions to the Uniform Per-Student Funding Formula; and• Approval of appointed members to the Board of Education.

When DCPS was an independent agency, Title V of the District of Columbia MunicipalRegulations, also known as the “Board of Education Rules” governed DCPS. In PERAA, theCouncil gave the Mayor authority to “promulgate rules and regulations governing DCPS,including rules governing the process by which the Mayor and DCPS will seek and utilize publiccomment in the development of policy.”3 In addition, Section 106(b) of PERAA explicitly states

that all rules, orders, obligations, determinations, grants, contracts, licenses, and agreements of the Board of Education and the District of Columbia Public Schools transferred to the Mayor areto remain in effect until lawfully amended, repealed, or modified. Consequently, the executivemust adhere to Title V of the DCMR unless new rules are promulgated or the executive elects toenact emergency rulemaking. While this was successful in modifying the relevant portions of theHome Rule Act and made DCPS a subordinate agency of the Mayor, these rules will ultimatelyexpress how the Mayor intends to run the District’s education system. Hence, as a check on theexecutive, the Council’s oversight role, budget authority, and legislative responsibilities haveincreased and expanded significantly.

Nonetheless, as the Mayor acknowledged, PERAA does not address the basic reasons for theschool district’s dismal student achievement or fix weak instructional practices in the schools.4 The Council should expect to play a continuing role in education reform.

Therefore, the purpose of this briefing paper is to identify and describe the role of the Council of the District of Columbia since the enactment of PERAA. This primer also analyzes the newgovernance structure as it relates to the provision of education in the District of Columbia as wellas the oversight opportunities they present. Moreover, after a discussion of the legislation, anumber of policy issues are discussed, including their implications and some possibilities for addressing them. Finally, the briefing paper concludes with a recommendation that the Councilof the District of Columbia adopts a structured and comprehensive policy agenda in order tofacilitate policy making and oversight.

3 Council of the District of Columbia. DC Act. 17-0038, District of Columbia Education Reform Amendment Act of

2007 . http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/images/00001/20070423153411.pdf, Accessed 24 September 2007.4 Adrian Fenty, District of Columbia Public Education Reform Amendment Act of 2007 , Council of the District of Columbia, 27 February 2007, http://dc.gov/mayor/pdf/Mayor_2_27_07_testimony.shtm, Accessed 16 October 2007.



6

Background

The District of Columbia Public Schools enrolled 50,270 students as of October 5, 20075 and isconsidered a large urban school district/system according to the National School BoardsAssociation. A large school district is defined as one that has more than 25,000 students.

6The

FY 2008 budget requested for DCPS is $1,054,346,000, of which, $860,453,000 can beclassified as local funds.7 This funding supports 8,329 FTEs. The FY 2008 budget requestedallocated $320,366,000 to charter schools, which enroll an estimated 22,220 students as of October 5, 2007.8

Enrollment & FY 2008 Budget DCPS Charter Schools Totals

Enrollment (as of October 5, 2007) 50,270 22,220 72,490

FY 2008 Budget Request $1,054,346,000 $320,366,000 $1,374,712,000

FY 2008 Local Funds (includes

special purpose revenue)

$860,453,000

($10,004,000 in

special purposerevenue)

N/A $860,453,000

Table 1: Enrollment and FY 2008 Budget Requests

Many Councilmembers, throughout the scheduled hearings on PERAA, expressed graveconcerns about DCPS, especially with their inability to bring about the necessary changes andreforms while being held accountable for a failing system. Councilmembers watched asstandardized tests reflected significant academic failures district-wide and DCPS enrollmentdecreased. The newly approved PERAA will facilitate Council involvement, but more, it willrequire the Mayor to outline a clearly defined strategy for reform of this vast education system inorder to solve systemic problems. This major reform initiative will require a true partnershipbetween the executive and the legislative branches of government. The Council will be requiredto provide adequate oversight to ensure that the implemented measures are yielding the intendedresults.

This frustration exists not only in the District of Columbia. Nationally, elected officials haveexpressed frustration and discontent with their public education systems and have madedecisions to alter the governance structures to facilitate decision-making. The Mayor and theCouncil have an opportunity and the authority to strategically shape and direct educational andadministrative policy reforms. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize the limitations of mayoral control. The push for mayoral control reflects rising frustration and desperation over poor student achievement, crumbling buildings, bureaucratic wrangling among school officials,and revolving-door superintendents but it is not considered a panacea. Changes in governance donot address the basic reasons for poor performance.

5 Rajan Dileep, Project Manager at the Office of the State Superintendent of Education, personal communication to

the author, 31 October 2007.6 Frederick M. Hess, “School Boards at the Dawn of the 21st Century,” National School Boards Association,http://www.nsba.org/site/docs/1200/1143.pdf, Accessed 9 October 2007. 7 District of Columbia, “FY 2008 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan: Operating Appendices – Part II,” 7 June

2007.8 Phillip Chang, Education Policy Research Analyst at the Office of the State Superintendent of Education, personalcommunication to the author, 31 October 2007.



7

Nonetheless, it has been reported that the Boston, Chicago, and New York school districts haveimproved test scores, avoided teacher strikes, and had longer-lasting superintendents sincemayors took over.9 In addition, they have standardized their curricula, ended “social promotion”of kids who fall too far behind, opened new schools to give students more choice, and brought inmillions of dollars in corporate donations. But education specialists continue to debate whether

students actually get a better education under mayoral control, whether academic gains will bepermanent, and how much credit mayors should get for the successes.

Kenneth Wong, a Brown University education professor, examined test scores of the 100 largestschool districts from 1999 to 2003. He found that students in mayor-controlled school systemsoften perform better than those in other urban systems. Test scores in mayor-run districts arerising “significantly,” he says. However, Wong says in his study that “there is still a long way togo before (mayor-controlled) districts achieve acceptable levels of achievement.”10

Conversely, Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute says his review of previousstudies finds that it is “inconclusive” whether mayors can raise test scores more than elected

school boards. He says that solid data on student achievement has not been collected longenough. Likewise, test scores in other cities with elected school boards, such as in Houston, haveincreased.11 These experiences imply the challenges leaders face when advocating school reform.

In PERAA, the Council mandated annual evaluations of DCPS in regards to business practices,human resources, academic plans, and student achievement. However, the first evaluation willnot be available until late September 2008. Overall, it will be difficult to assess the success of education reform and the direct results of the mayoral takeover due to a lack of reliable data.While the Office of the State Superintendent of Education is currently constructing a state-widelongitudinal education data system, this project will not be able to provide data for several yearson student demographics, student achievement, and other reform measures. Nevertheless, the

Council will still have to provide oversight of public education.

Historical Review

A historical review of the District of Columbia’s educational system reveals several ongoingconcerns. In response, numerous reforms and studies have been offered and some implementedin an effort to enhance the system. For example, in 1968, Congress enacted the “District of Columbia Elected Board of Education Act,” which vested control of the public schools in theBoard of Education. From the aforementioned period to present, the city witnessed severalchanges in the Board’s position and composition. In 1966, a lawsuit was filed against the Districtof Columbia, which resulted in the Court ordering on May 25, 1971, that per-pupil expenditureson the elementary level should not deviate plus or minus five percent from the city-wide mean,

9 Parthenon Group, 2006, Fact-Base for DCPS Reform, http://dc.gov/mayor/DCPS_Reform_report.shtm, Accessed

15 October 2007. 10 Wong, Kenneth and Shen, Francis, 2006, “When Mayors Lead Urban Schools: Toward developing a framework to assess the effects of mayoral takeover of urban districts.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American

Political Science Association, Philadelphia Marriott Hotel, Philadelphia, PA, Aug 27, 2003,

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p62166_index.html, Accessed 10 October 2007.11 Martha T. Moore, “More mayors move to take over schools,” USA Today, 20 March 2007,http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-03-20-cover-mayors-schools_N.htm, Accessed 10 October 2007.



8

and the Board of Education was further ordered to file annually with the Court sufficientinformation which would prove compliance with the Court order to equalize per-pupilexpenditures. Additional litigation in 1971 had a major impact upon public education. In Mills v.Board of Education, the Board of Education, the Superintendent, the Mayor, and the District of Columbia were sued on behalf of seven children who had been identified as mentally retarded,

emotionally disturbed, or having behavioral problems, and who had either been denied educationopportunities or dismissed by the public schools. The Court found that the District governmenthad failed to provide suitable, publicly-supported education for children with special needs andexceptional children; and second, the public school system had been suspending, expelling,excluding, reassigning, and transferring students in some cases from regular instruction withoutproviding the students and their parents with due process, or the provision of a fair opportunity toobject through the means of a hearing. Ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, the judge ordered asystem of procedures to guarantee student rights and special educational placement hearings. TheCourt also directed the government to submit to the Court a comprehensive plan for theeducation of children with disabilities.12 DCPS is still struggling to implement changes to thespecial education program.

Governance change is not new to the District of Columbia. In February of 2000, the Councilamended the Home Rule Charter to alter the composition of the Board of Education, decreasingthe number of Board members from 11 to 9 and creating a hybrid board, where 5 members wereelected and 4 were appointed by the Mayor. This provision will eventually sunset in 2009, whenthe State Board of Education will revert to an all-elected Board.

In February 2004, the former Mayor proposed a mayoral takeover in the “Omnibus Board of Education and D.C. Public Schools Restructuring Act of 2004.”13 His proposal would haveelevated the Board of Education to the state level to serve as ultimate authority for setting andenforcing statewide policies while the State Education Officer would report directly to the Boardof Education. Altered by the Council, the comprehensive school governance reform proposal wasultimately vetoed by the Mayor as it did not retain many of the proposed governance changes.

Nonetheless, one of the most promising advances occurred in 2006 with the adoption andimplementation of new academic standards and the development and release of the Master Education Plan. The content standards and the corresponding standardized assessment, theDistrict of Columbia Comprehensive Assessment System (DC-CAS), were modeled after themuch-admired standards of Massachusetts. For science and social studies, in addition toMassachusetts, DCPS utilized and customized standards from California, Arizona, and Indiana,three other states with standards that are considered among the best in the country. Experts thatreviewed the Master Education Plan found it to be an excellent formula for turning around theDistrict’s failing system. However, according to data provided by DCPS the total cost of implementing all of the recommendations would be $82.6 million in FY 2007, $91.4 million in

12 Richard Hurlbut, 1981, A Look Back in Time, District of Columbia Public Schools: A Brief History ,

http://www.k12.dc.us/about/history.htm, Accessed 9 October 2007.13 Council of the District of Columbia. DC Bill. 15-0723, Omnibus Board of Education and D.C. Public Schools

Restructuring Amendment Act of 2004. http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/images/00001/20040223133742.pdf,Accessed 3 January 2007.



9

FY 2008, and $90.1 million in FY 2009.14 Seemingly, implementation of the Master EducationPlan would require additional resources for effective implementation. It is not clear as to whether or not this projection has been factored into the FY 2008 budget and financial plan or that it willbe factored in at a later time. Nonetheless, additional resources will be required to implementsubstantial education reform in the District of Columbia.

However, significant progress towards improving academic achievement and the outcomes of theresidents of the District of Columbia will not occur until the school system resolves these long-standing issues.

The Role of the Council of the District of Columbia: Oversight

To implement school reform, PERAA established a Department of Education, led by a DeputyMayor for Education (DME), tasked with various planning, promotion, coordination, andsupervision duties, along with oversight of the Office of the State Superintendent of Education(OSSE), the Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization (OPEFM), and the Office of the

Ombudsman for Public Education. It also redesigned the State Education Office as the Office of the State Superintendent of Education, headed by a State Superintendent to “serve as the stateeducation agency and perform the functions of a state education agency for the District of Columbia under applicable federal law, including grant-making, oversight, and state educationalagency functions for standards, assessments, and federal accountability requirements for elementary and secondary education.”15 PERAA also created the Interagency Collaboration andServices Integration Commission to coordinate services of all youth-serving agencies, andensuring implementation of best-practices programs; an Office of Ombudsman for PubicEducation to provide parents and residents an entity to which they can express their concerns andseek results; and the OPEFM to manage the modernization or new construction and maintenanceof DCPS facilities. The Council must confirm the Deputy Mayor for Education, the StateSuperintendent of Education, the Executive Director of OPEFM, and the Chancellor of DCPS.The State Superintendent of Education is not subject to approval by the Council.

As previously referenced, Title I of PERAA stated that the Mayor shall promulgate rules andregulations governing DCPS, including rules governing the process by which the Mayor andDCPS seek and utilize public comment in the development of policy. This permits the Mayor torewrite Title V, traditionally know as the “Board of Education Rules” or “Board Rules.” Whilethe proposed rules are to be submitted to the Council for a 45-day review period, the Mayor hasyet to promulgate and submit them to the Council. The Council may wish to prescribe a timelineor compel the Mayor to deliver the rules and regulations governing education in the interest of the residents of the District of Columbia to discover the means that the Mayor and the Chancellor will use to reform DCPS. The rules would be indicative of the Mayor’s intentions and how theMayor will apply authority under the new governance structure.

14 District of Columbia Public Schools, 2006, “Master Education Plan,”

http://www.k12.dc.us/master/MEP_final.pdf, Accessed 24 September 2007.15 Council of the District of Columbia. DC Act. 17-0038, District of Columbia Education Reform Amendment Act of

2007 . http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/images/00001/20070423153411.pdf, Accessed 24 September 2007.



10

Express and Inherent Powers of the Council of the District of Columbia

The following is a list comprised of the express and inherent powers provided by PERAA to theCouncil. Several of these items are detailed further later in this document while deadlines andmandated reports have been summarized in the Appendix (See Tables 7 and 8).

• The District of Columbia Public Schools will be established as a separate cabinet-levelagency, subordinate to the Mayor. Establishing DCPS as a cabinet-level agency permitsthe Council to exercise all authority usually granted to it in its oversight over other cabinet-level agencies in the District of Columbia government, with the exception of specific powers that may be expressly denied to it. (Inherent)

• All promulgated rules and regulations governing DCPS, including those governing theprocess by which the Mayor and DCPS will seek and utilize public comment in thedevelopment of policy, shall be submitted to the Council for a 45-day period of review. If the Council does not approve or disapprove the proposed rules, by resolution, within the

45-day review period, the proposed rules shall be deemed approved (This submission iscritical because the State Board of Education has been restricted to state-level policiesand a mechanism for public and parental input regarding local school policies has notbeen formally disclosed). (Express)

• The Chancellor, pursuant to Section 105 of Title II, shall have procurement authorityindependent of the Office of Contracting and Procurement, consistent with the District of Columbia Procurement Practices Act of 1985 (The Council must exercise oversight over all contracts that are awarded to contractors to ensure that they are in compliance with theProcurement Practices Act and the LSDBE Act). (Expressed)

• The Council is required to exercise oversight over the newly created Department of Education. This entity shall be headed by the Deputy Mayor for Education. (Inherent)

• The Council is responsible for confirming the appointed Deputy Mayor for Education.(Express)

• The Council is responsible for reviewing the “special education status report,” pursuantto Section 203 of Title II of PERAA. Within 60 days of the effective date of Title II, theDepartment of Education shall report to the Mayor and the Council on the status of the(1) Special Education Task Force and the development of the Special Education ReformPlan; and (2) The implementation of the recommendations adopted by the Board of Education pursuant to the resolution entitled “Adopting the Recommendations of the AdHoc Committee on Special Education White Paper and Other Recommendations toImprove the Delivery of Special Education Services within the District of ColumbiaPublic Schools.”16 (Express)

16 District of Columbia Board of Education. SR06-22, Adopting the Recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee on

Special Education White Paper and Other Recommendations to Improve the Delivery of Special Education Services

with the DC Public School System. http://www.k12.dc.us/boe/Documents/searesolutions/2006/SR06-22.pdf,Accessed 28 November 2007.



11

• The Council is responsible for exercising appropriate oversight over the Mayor to ensurethat projected benchmarks to measure annual achievements are being met. The Mayor isrequired to submit the projected benchmarks to the Council by September 15th of eachyear, beginning in 2008. (Express & Inherent)

• The Council is required to review the annual evaluation of District of Columbia PublicSchools that includes an assessment of:

(i) Business practices;(ii) Human resources operations;(iii) All academic plans; and(iv) The annual achievements made as measured against the benchmarks

submitted the previous year, including a detailed description of studentachievements. (Express)

• The Council is responsible for reviewing the five-year assessment of the public educationsystem, as established by PERAA. (Express)

• The Council is required to approve the independent evaluator that will be used for yearlyevaluations and the one-time five-year evaluation. The independent evaluator shall berecommended by the Mayor and submitted to the Council for approval by September 15,2007. The Council’s established review period is 30 days. If the Council does notapprove or disapprove the recommendation, by resolution, within the 30-day reviewperiod, the recommendation shall be deemed disapproved. (Express)

• The Council is required to exercise oversight over the state education agency, sincerenamed the “Office of the State Superintendent of Education” (OSSE). (Inherent)

• The Council will have to exercise oversight over the State Superintendent of Educationwho shall now be serving as the chief state school officer for the District of Columbia.(Inherent)

• The Council is responsible for reviewing and approving all promulgated rules necessaryfor the Office of the State Superintendent of Education to execute its assigned duties andresponsibilities. (Express)

• The Council is responsible for reviewing all transitions plans that are a part of PERAA.Pursuant to the Act, the Office of the State Superintendent of Education submitted atransition plan for the transfer of state-level functions to the Board of Education for review and submitted it to the Mayor for approval. The Mayor forwarded the approvedtransition plan to the Council on September 10, 2007. (Express)

• The Council is required to review the transition plan for the transfer of state-levelfunctions from the Board of Education to the OSSE. (Express)



12

• The Council will review established fee rates for all adult education courses and theactual programs that will be funded, city-wide. The Council will also have to exerciseoversight concerning the various benchmarks that will be established for the adulteducation program and the various organizations that will provide services. (Inherent)

• The Council is required to exercise oversight over the Office of the State Superintendentof Education. This office shall serve as the state education agency and perform thefunctions of a state education agency for the District of Columbia under applicablefederal law, including grant-making, oversight, and state educational agency functions for standards, assessments, and federal accountability requirements for elementary andsecondary education. The OSSE will also be required to oversee state-level functions andactivities related to early childhood education programs, including the implementation of the Early Intervention Services Program. (Inherent)

• The Council is required to exercise appropriate oversight of the OSSE, concerning thetransfer of all state-level functions, related to adult education or adult literacy, from the

University of the District of Columbia to OSSE. The Council is required to continue tomonitor the adult education and adult literacy program to ensure that established goalsare met. (Inherent)

• The Council is also required to provide appropriate oversight concerning the transfer of support functions related to the responsibilities of the Early Care and EducationAdministration and the Early Intervention Program to the OSSE. (Inherent)

• The Council may exercise oversight over the Board of Education, specifically as it relatesto the various state academic standards it will be required to approve. (Inherent)

• The Council is required to exercise ongoing oversight of the newly establishedInteragency Collaboration and Services Integration Commission (Commission). Thisentity will have independent personnel authority for all employees of the Commissionand exercise procurement authority, consistent with the District of ColumbiaProcurement Practices Act. However, the provisions of section 105(a), (b), (c), and (e) of the District of Columbia Procurement Practices Act of 1985 shall not apply to this entity.(Inherent)

• The Council will have to review the required annual independent evaluations concerningthe effectiveness of the programs supported, facilitated, or overseen by the InteragencyCollaboration and Services Integration Commission including: the established programsimpact on academic performance, levels of violence by and against children, truancy, anddelinquency; and the cost effectiveness of the programs, taking into account such factorsas reductions, or potential reductions, in out-of-home placements and “in law”enforcement expenditures, and the extent to which the Commission’s member agencieshave developed the capacity to sustain the programs and activities. (Inherent)



13

• The Council is required to review annual reports on the status and progress of theestablished objectives of the Commission, including the results of the required annualindependent evaluation. (Express)

• The Council is required to affirmatively approve the nominee for Ombudsman and to

exercise appropriate oversight over the newly created Office of the Ombudsman for Public Education. (Express & Inherent)

• The Council is required to exercise appropriate oversight over the newly created Officeof Public Education Facilities Modernization (OPEFM). This entity has been grantedindependent procurement and personnel authority, which will increase the level of oversight that is required. In addition, this entity is responsible for awarding contractsthat could total $2 billion. The Council will also be required to approve the ExecutiveDirector of OPEFM. (Express)

• The Council is requiring that a “work program” be submitted to the Council detailing theactivities and capital projects to be undertaken in FY 2008. This will include a proposedorganizational structure of OPEFM, in 60 days [Submitted on December 5, 2007]. Thiswill be followed by a revised Master Facilities Plan, required by May 31, 2008.(Express)

• By December 1st of each year, beginning in 2008, the OPEFM shall submit to theCouncil, a report of the activities of the OPEFM during the preceding fiscal year,including related financial statements and summaries of projects, the total amount of contract expenditures awarded to local, small, and disadvantaged business enterprises,and the number of employees who are District residents. (Express & Inherent)

• The Council is required to exercise appropriate oversight of OPEFM with regard to its

newly granted maintenance authority at District of Columbia Public Schools facilities.(Inherent)

Governance Modifications Set Forth in PERAA

Accountability remains an important subject, influenced by the unique geopolitical structure of the District of Columbia. While PERAA authorizes DCPS as a cabinet-level, subordinate agencyto the Mayor, DCPS is monitored by the Office of the State Superintendent, another executiveagency. A substantial criticism of the former paradigm was that DCPS, as both a local educationagency and a state education agency, was forced to monitor itself. However, under PERAA, theMayor’s progress on education will be measured by another municipal agency. Only the Council

remains as a completely independent body and therefore the Council has the responsibility of providing effective oversight.

The revised structure is further complicated with the addition of new education agencies andoffices under the Mayor. While PERAA altered the governance structure, it did not greatlyreduce the layers of bureaucracy overseeing the school system. The expanded bureaucracy maycomplicate, rather than simplify, decision-making as the roles and lines of authority andaccountability are not clearly defined for all entities.



14

Figure 1 is a depiction of the revised governance structure.

In this re-conceptualization, it is important to review the responsibilities of the Office of the StateSuperintendent of Education, especially in a federal context. Federal law, including the No ChildLeft Behind Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, requires states to monitor and report on a variety of different subject areas and performance measures within the localeducation agencies (i.e. DCPS and charter schools), including the submission of stateaccountability plans, reports of adequate yearly progress (standardized test scores), and teacher quality, among others.

The selected organizational structure may produce oversight issues, especially as management isdispersed among several separate entities. For example, while the Office of the StateSuperintendent of Education is required to report to the U.S. Department of Education, it remainsan agency under the Mayor. Concurrently, DCPS, the entity that the Office of the StateSuperintendent of Education is monitoring for performance and compliance is also an agency

under the Mayor, causing a potential conflict of interest and unclear lines of accountability.

Figure 2 demonstrates the complicated lines of authority and accountability.

Oversight over Public Education by the


Mayor of the District of Columbia

Department of Education

(Deputy Mayor for Education)

District of Columbia Public Schools

(Chancellor)

Office of the Ombudsman for Public

Education

Office of Public Education FacilitiesModernization (Executive Director)

Interagency Collaboration and

Integrated Services Commission

Office of the State Superintendent of Education

State Board of Education

Figure 1: Modified Public Education Governance Structure after PERAA 2007



15

The Executive Office of the Mayor

Title I, Section 103(a) of PERAA grants extensive powers to the Mayor of the District of

Columbia stating that “the Mayor shall govern the public schools in the District of Columbia andshall have authority over all curricula, operations, functions, budget, personnel, labor negotiations and collective bargaining agreements, facilities, and other education-relatedmatters.”17 The title grants all authority to the Mayor, relative to the District’s public educationsystem; subsequent titles clearly outline the Mayor’s delegation of certain duties, responsibilities,and authority to the following departments, offices, boards, and commissions: the State Board of Education, the Chancellor, the Deputy Mayor for Education, the Department of Education, theOffice of the State Superintendent of Education, the Interagency Collaboration and ServicesIntegration Commission, the Office of the Ombudsman for Public Education, and the Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization.

In addition, all functions, authority, programs, positions, personnel, property, records, andunexpended balances of appropriations, allocations, and other funds available to the Board of Education, as the local education agency, established pursuant to Section 495 of the Home RuleAct for the purpose of providing educational services to residents of the District of Columbiawere also transferred to the Mayor.



U.S. Department of Education



Charter Schools


Deputy Mayor for Education Public Charter School Board

Figure 2: Oversight and Monitoring Relationships after PERAA



16

As the statutorily defined lawmaking body in the District of Columbia, the Council acts as acheck and balance to the Mayor. While this may generate political tension, it may also lead toincreased dialogue and collaboration. As this relationship matures regarding education,disagreements regarding education reform may dampen. Overall, increased oversight should leadto increased discussion between the executive and legislative branches, enhanced policy analysis

and formulation, and effective implementation, ultimately creating better outcomes for students.

A major challenge for the Council is the lack of measurable benchmarks to evaluate thetransformation of public education in the District of Columbia. More importantly, the Mayor andChancellor have chosen to share few of their priorities and their status with the Council. Thiscould seriously undermine oversight efforts in the first year of implementation. Nonetheless, theMayor released two reports earlier in the year, the “DCPS Reform Priorities of the FentyAdministration”18 and “An Action Plan for Special Education Reform in the District of Columbia.”19 The Mayor and Chancellor have also stated their intention to adhere to the Master Education Plan. These should provide a basic rubric to judge the implementation of schoolreform.

Informed by a myriad of sources, the documents list many goals and prescribe actions to achievethem. The draft report (a final report was never released) states activities, timeframes, and howeach activity will be measured. The enumerated goals include:

• Goal I: Ensure Challenging Curriculum and Instruction for All Students• Goal II: Teachers and Principals Will Deliver High Quality Instruction to Every Student

• Goal III: Safe & Orderly Schools• Goal IV: Develop a Strong System of Accountability Balanced with School Level

Autonomy

• Goal V: Ensure Exceptional Service

• Goal VI: Build on Our Community’s Assets20

Likewise, the special education reform plan, greatly modeled on previous work of the Board of Education, lists many issues, proposed actions, and a timeline. The enumerated issues include:

• Culture Shift to Embrace Inclusion

• Improving Student Achievement and Increasing Parent Resources• Information Infrastructure and Resource Allocation• Compliance with Legal Requirements• Special Education Transportation21

18 District of Columbia. “DCPS Reform Priorities of the Fenty Administration,”

http://edreform.dc.gov/edreform/Lib/edreform/pdf/academicplan022307.pdf, Accessed 30 October 2007.19 District of Columbia. “An Action Plan for Special Education Reform in the District of Columbia,”http://ec.rrc.dc.gov/ec/lib/ec/special_ed_action_plan.pdf, Accessed 30 October 2007.20 District of Columbia. “DCPS Reform Priorities of the Fenty Administration,”

http://edreform.dc.gov/edreform/Lib/edreform/pdf/academicplan022307.pdf, Accessed 30 October 2007.21 District of Columbia. “An Action Plan for Special Education Reform in the District of Columbia,”http://ec.rrc.dc.gov/ec/lib/ec/special_ed_action_plan.pdf, Accessed 30 October 2007.



17

To date, the executive has not shared updates on these proposed benchmarks and academicplans; under PERAA, they will not be provided until September 2008. The Council’s oversightresponsibilities would be greatly enhanced by regular updates on the progress in achieving policypriorities. This should also lead to increased communication between the executive and theCouncil. While oversight is typically practiced reactively, oversight is both a reactive and

proactive activity. The Council may wish to be more proactive, by creating an oversight agendaand utilizing oversight as a means to improve programs and policy. Otherwise, the Mayor can setthe agenda for education reform at the exclusion of the Council during the first year of implementation. This distinction will be discussed in the section entitled Setting the Agenda and Identifying Policy Priorities. Increased communication is necessary between the executive andthe legislative to achieve coherent leadership on education.

The State Board of Education

The former Board of Education, while its composition has remained the same, has significantlydifferent duties. It is now a State Board of Education and is removed from the local, day-to-dayoperation of the school system. Due to the unique geopolitical arrangement of the District of Columbia, there may be overlap of functions between the Council and the State Board of Education and the relationship between these two entities will need to evolve over time toestablish delineations. The Council enhanced the Board of Education’s power and authority asoriginally proposed in Title IV, Section. Currently, the State Board of Education is both anadvisory body and an explicit approval authority. This elevates the Board from purely advisorybody as proposed to an actual policymaking entity.

As approved by the Council of the District of Columbia, the Board of Education has beengranted final approval authority on a number of key academic matters. The Board could acquireadditional duties and responsibilities, should either the Mayor elect to delegate additionalauthority to this entity or the Council enhances the Board’s powers by legislative act. Paragraph(b) of Section 103 provides that “the Mayor may delegate any of his authority to a designee as heor she determines is warranted for efficient and sound administration and to further the purposeof DCPS to educate all students enrolled within its schools or learning centers, consistent withDistrict-wide standards of academic achievement.”

22This authority allows the Mayor to delegate

any or all of his authority to an entity(s) that he may deem most appropriate to address theeducation policy, including the State Board of Education.

Pursuant to current District law, the State Board of Education has been granted both advisory andapproval authority:

Advisory Authority

[To] advise the Office of the State Superintendent on education matters, including:

• State standards;


2007 , http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/images/00001/20070423153411.pdf, Accessed 24 September 2007.



18

• State policies, including those governing the special, academic, vocational, charter, andother schools;

• State objectives; and• State regulations proposed by the Mayor or the State Education Officer.

Approval Authority

• State academic standards;• High school graduation requirements;• Standards for high school equivalence credentials;

• The definition of “adequate yearly progress;”• Standards for “highly qualified teachers;”• The definition of “proficiency” as it relates to measures of student achievement;• Standards for accreditation and certification of teacher preparation programs;• The state accountability plan;• State policies for parental involvement;

• State policies for supplemental education service providers operating in the District;

• Rules for residency verification;• The list of charter school accreditation organizations;• The categories and format of the annual report card, pursuant to NCLB Act;

• The list of private placement accreditation organizations;• State rules for enforcing school attendance requirements; and

• State standards for home schooling.

It is important to note that when an entity has been granted approval authority, the approvingbody also, generally, inherently, possesses disapproval authority, unless such authority has beenexpressly prohibited. Further, if an approval authority rejects policy proposals and/or recommendations, such proposals and recommendations will not be implemented, unless thebody’s inaction or disapproval can expressly be overridden. No such prohibition exists and noprocess to override the State Board of Education has been presented. How the Mayor defines theauthority of the State Board of Education will be answered when the Office of the StateSuperintendent of Education formulates and promulgates rules necessary to carry out itsfunctions, including rules governing the process of review and approval of state-level policies bythe State Board of Education. This formulation and promulgation by the Office of the StateSuperintendent could restrict the authority of the Board substantially, relegating it to a de-factoadvisory body, as was originally contemplated by the executive branch of government.

In addition, the Board shall conduct monthly meetings to receive citizen input with respect toissues properly before it, which may be conducted at various locations in each ward. Moreover,the Board shall consider matters for approval upon submission of a request for policy action bythe State Superintendent of Education; approval can proceed after a period of review. However,it is important to note that the Mayor shall, by order, specify the Board’s organizational structure,staff, budget, operations, reimbursement of expenses policy, and other matters affecting theBoard’s functions.



19

Nonetheless, the Council is permitted to pursue legislative action under any of these categories,including the modification of content standards (e.g. urging standards of financial literacy) andhigh school graduation requirements (e.g. mandatory community service hours). Along with anylegislative action taken by the Council that would affect the day-to-day operation of District’seducation system, acting within this capacity moves the Council into a role akin to the former

Board of Education. However, if the State Board of Education is successful in becoming aprominent voice for public education and is able to help set the policy agenda, the Council mayfind opportunities to legislate upon the advice and opinions of the State Board of Education.

The District’s model, relative to its Board of Education, is unique among reform models thathave been selected and adopted by other cities around the country. From an overall perspective,reforms at the city level, including mayoral takeovers in Boston, Chicago, and New York City,were subject to the approval of the state legislature. In addition, each of the cities that haveimplemented significant reforms established local councils or bodies that address local educationmatters and issues. State academic standards are established at the state level, generally, by aState Department of Education. The District’s model is starkly different because the District has

assigned state-level responsibilities to a locally based and locally elected entity, whereas all“local” educational matters, pursuant to current District law, shall be addressed through theDistrict of Columbia Public School system and the Executive Office of the Mayor. Thisorganizational design distinguishes the District from other reform models, yet its dissimilaritymay be necessary due to the District’s unique geopolitical nature. Moving forward, it may benecessary for powers and responsibilities to be further modified to meet specific needs. Acomparison of state K-12 governance Structures is shown in Table 3.

Pursuant to the legislation, the Office of the Ombudsman, which is an office within theDepartment of Education, will receive complaints and concerns from parents, students, teachers,and other District residents concerning public education, including personnel actions, policies,and procedures. The Ombudsman has the authority to determine the validity of any complaintand to examine and address valid complaints and concerns. According to the legislation, theOmbudsman shall also generate options for a response, and offer a recommendation among theoptions. It is not clear which entity will have the authority to officially resolve complaints.Formerly, the Board of Education assumed the role of advocate in public education; however, theBoard met with resistance when asked to resolve complaints. Monitoring the Office of theOmbudsman is essential to ensure that the District’s bureaucracy does not interfere with problemresolution; if it does, the Council may wish to intervene and delineate additional powers toensure swift solutions to problems as they arise.

The Chancellor

Prior to the passage of PERAA, the Chief Executive Officer for DCPS as well as the Chief StateSchools Officer was legally referred to as the Superintendent of Schools. The Superintendent,consistent with prior District law, was to be hired by the Board of Education and to serve as anon-voting member of the Board. The Superintendent, renamed the Chancellor under PERAA,was, and continues to be, responsible for the overall operations of the public school system. TheChancellor is to be appointed by the Mayor, with the advice and consent of the Council while theChief State Schools Officer is now the State Superintendent within the Office of the State



20

Superintendent of Education. The authority to hire or fire either of these individuals no longer resides with the Board of Education.

At the Chancellor’s confirmation hearing on July 2, 2007, many Councilmembers lamented thatthe Mayor did not follow PERAA’s prescribed selection procedures in selecting the

Chancellor.

23

Moving forward, it is important to ensure that all provisions of the law are adheredto and that the executive acts in accordance with the approved law.

Duties of the Chancellor

• Organize the agency for efficient operation;• Create offices, within the agency, as necessary;• Exercise the powers necessary and appropriate to operate the schools and school system

and to implement applicable provisions of District and federal law;• Communicate with the collective bargaining unit for the employees under his or her

administration;

• Promulgate and implement rules and regulations necessary and appropriate to accomplishhis or her duties and functions in accordance with Section 103 and the District of Columbia Administrative Procedure Act;

• Obtain parental input as required by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, approvedJanuary 8, 2002;

• Hold public meetings, at least quarterly;

• Exercise, to the extent that such authority is delegated by the Mayor;o Personnel authority; ando Procurement authority independent of the Office of Contracting and Procurement,

consistent with the District of Columbia Procurement Practices Act of 1985;

• Maintain clean and safe school facilities [modified by the Council on October 5, 2007 toonly include cleaning and janitorial services];

• Create and operate a District-wide database that records the condition of all schoolfacilities under the control of DCPS, which database shall be updated as necessary, but atleast once per calendar year; and

• All personnel policies and guidelines for the hiring of principals will fall within theprovince of the Chancellor and will not be subject to approval by the State Board of Education. Further all established guidelines and goals for academic achievement wouldhave to be consistent with the state academic standards recommended by the Office of theState Superintendent of Education and approved by the State Board of Education.


The Deputy Mayor for Education and the Department of Education will have oversight of the:

• Office of State Superintendent of Education;

• Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization;

23 Council of the District of Columbia Committee of the Whole. Chancellor of the District of Columbia Public

Schools Michelle Rhee Confirmation Resolution of 2007. Hearing, 2 July 2007.http://octt.dc.gov/services/on_demand_video/on_demand_july_2007_week_1.shtm, Accessed 1 November 2007.



21

• Office of the Ombudsman for Public Education; and• Interagency Collaboration and Service Integration Commission.

Duties of the Deputy Mayor for Education

• Be responsible for the planning, coordination, and supervision of all public education andeducation-related activities under its jurisdiction, including development and support of programs to improve the delivery of educational services and opportunities, from earlychildhood to the post-secondary education level; provided, that nothing in this title shallbe interpreted to grant to the Mayor any authority over the University of the District of Columbia that is currently vested in the Board of Trustees of the University of theDistrict of Columbia;

• Promote, coordinate, and oversee collaborative efforts among District governmentagencies to support education and child development as it relates to education, includingcoordinating the integration of programs and resources;

• Coordinate programs, policies, and objective of the Mayor with the Board of Trustees of

the University of the District of Columbia;• Promote, coordinate, and oversee the enhancement and quality of adult literacy and adult

education programs within the State Superintendent of Education Office; and• Submit to the Mayor, Chancellor, State Board of Education, and the Council the reports

required by Section 604, items 14 and 15:o Item 14: The Ombudsman is required to systematically track complaints and

concerns and periodically analyze the data and report to the Deputy Mayor for Education patterns of complaints and concerns that suggest a need for policychange, staff training, or the implementation of strategic action to address an issue

o Item 15: Within 90 days of the end of each school year, submit to the DeputyMayor for Education, a report analyzing the work of the previous year, includingan analysis of the types, and number of:

i. Inquiriesii. Complaints and concerns resolved informally;

iii. Complaints and concerns examined;iv. Examinations pending;v. Recommendations made; and

vi. Recommendations that were followed, to the extent that it can bedetermined.

In addition, the Deputy Mayor for Education will develop a comprehensive, District-wide datasystem that integrates and tracks data across education, justice, and human service agencies (theInteragency Collaboration and Service Integration Commission is responsible for developing theactual data system and ensuring that the data are current). The relationship between this duty andthe ongoing efforts within OSSE to develop a state-wide longitudinal data warehouse is unclear.

Moreover, within 60 days of the effective date of the title, the Department of Education isrequired to report to the Mayor and the Council on the status of special education in the Districtof Columbia. The two reports mandated by PERAA include:



22

1. The Special Education Task Force, and the development of the Special Education ReformPlan, established pursuant to Section 372 of the Special Education Task ForceEstablishment Act of 2003, effective November 13, 2003 (D.C. Law 15-39; D.C. OfficialCode §38-2551); and

2. The implementation of the recommendations adopted by the Board of Education pursuantto the resolution adopting the Recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee on SpecialEducation White Paper and Other Recommendations to Improve the Delivery of SpecialEducation Services within District of Columbia Public Schools.

The Department of Education, as established in the District of Columbia, is very dissimilar toother state education departments. The statutorily assigned duties and responsibilities of theOffice of the State Superintendent of Education are more consistent with state organizationalstructures that have been deemed state departments of education. The Council may wish torevisit the structure of the Department of Education and determine the feasibility of maintaining

its current staffing levels or consolidating it with the Office of the State Superintendent of Education. Therefore, it may be constructive to examine the qualifications of the employeesunder the Deputy Mayor for Education against their roles and responsibilities.


The State Superintendent shall serve as the Chief State School Officer for the District of Columbia and shall represent the OSSE and the District of Columbia in all matters before theU.S. Department of Education and with other states and educational organizations.

All operational authority for state-level functions, except that delegated to the State Board of Education in Section 403 of PERAA, shall be vested in the Office of the State Superintendent of Education under the supervision of the State Superintendent of Education.

Duties of the State Superintendent

• The OSSE shall serve as the state education agency and perform the functions of a stateeducation agency for the District of Columbia under applicable federal law, includinggrant-making, oversight, and state educational agency functions for standards,assessments, and federal accountability requirements for elementary and secondaryeducation;

• Issue rules to establish requirements to govern acceptable credit to be granted for studiescompleted at independent, private, public, public charter schools, and private instruction;

• Prescribe minimum amounts of instructional time for all schools, including public, publiccharter, and private schools;

• Oversee the state-level functions and activities related to early childhood educationprograms, including the public education of the Early Intervention Services Program, inaccordance with Section 502 of the Child and Youth, Safety and Health OmnibusAmendment Act of 2004, effective April 13, 2005;

• Provide for the education of children in the custody of the Department of Youth



23

Rehabilitation Services;• Formulate and promulgate rules necessary to carry out its functions, including rules

governing the process for review and approval of state-level policies by the State Boardof Education under Section 403 of PERAA.

• Develop and adopt policies that come within the functions of state education agencies

under federal law, subject to the approval of the State Board of Education for thosepolicies that are subject to board approval under Section 403 of the PERAA;• Conduct studies and pilot projects to develop, review, or test state policy;• Provide staff support to the State Board of Education to enable it to perform its functions

as enumerated in Section 403 of the PERAA.

• Supervise adult education and adult literacy; and• Fulfill any other responsibilities consistent with the performance of the state-level

education functions of the District of Columbia.

- Transition Plan for Transfer of State-Level Functions

On September 10, 2007, the OSSE submitted to the Mayor a detailed transition plan for approval(in accordance with Section 7) for implementation of the transfers set forth in Title III. Thetransfer would begin within 30 days of approval; provided, that prior to completion andsubmission of the plan, the Mayor shall give notice of the contemplated action and anopportunity for a hearing for public comment on the plan which shall:

• Be formulated in consultation with the Board of Education, the District of ColumbiaPublic Schools, the Public Charter School Board, the Washington Teachers Union, andwith any relevant District and federal agencies;

• Identify the authority and responsibility of each entity at each stage in the transitionprocess;

• Specify time lines, dates, and benchmarks for completion of the transfer;• Provide an estimate of the cost to the OSSE of carrying out each transferred function; and• Identify any factors with potential for disrupting services to students and recommend

steps to prevent any possible disruption; and• The Mayor shall forward the approved transition plan to the Council and the State Board

of Education for review (The Transition Plan was transmitted to the Council onSeptember 10, 2007).

- Transfer of Authority for State-Level Functions at DCPS

One of the most challenging and complicated areas in need of reform within the District of Columbia’s public education system is the provision of education services to individuals withdisabilities and controlling the costs of the special education program. In the 2005-2006 schoolyear, DCPS enrolled approximately 10,200 students in special education, almost 18% of their total enrollment according to the Master Education Plan. However, this 18% accounted for about30% of total DCPS costs.24 Much of this disparity exists because 22% of those special educationstudents were placed in non-public, residential, and interagency programs that require the

24 District of Columbia Public Schools, 2006, “Master Education Plan,”http://www.k12.dc.us/master/MEP_final.pdf, Accessed 24 September 2007.



24

District to provide transportation because school leaders or a hearing officer determined thatDCPS could not meet their needs.

Recent testimony was provided to the Council concerning the costs associated with the District’sspecial education program and its impact on the overall operations budget for DCPS, e.g. the

operations budget is affected annually when the budget for special education is insufficient. Theneed to allocate additional resources, during the academic year, to the special education program,impacts funding that has been approved and allocated for, as an example, classroom instruction,teacher aides, additional personnel, and guidance counselors. The Council of the Great CitySchools found that the amount budgeted for special education in the District of Columbia isabout 30% of the school district’s total current expenditure, compared with about 12.6% in theaverage urban school district.

25Studies indicate that there is an ongoing and long-term pattern of

DCPS expending more on special education costs than is budgeted for that purpose. This patternexisted in FY 2006 and will likely be the same for FY 2007. Nonetheless, there was a reductionin the number of special education students placed in private schools in FY 2007. Improvementsmust be made if the District is to provide an adequate education to children with special needs.

Education officials have articulated that its emphasis will be on keeping District students that areclassified as special education students in the District. The Deputy Mayor for Education notedthat this would likely be the strategy of the current administration. He noted that there might bedifficulties associated with addressing students that have already been placed in sites outside of the city. One method to reduce the cost of special education, as mentioned by the Master Education Plan, is to serve students in or near their neighborhood schools which eliminatestuition and transportation fees. This presumes that DCPS builds capacity, through the hiring of highly qualified special education teachers, and can develop a highly functioning studentinformation system. Lastly, the “Interim Report of the Evaluation Team” regarding theBlackman-Jones consent decree stated that ENCORE, the current special education datamanagement system, “is a cumbersome, illogical, inflexible system” and is inadequately andinsufficiently maintained.26

In addition to the many challenges faced by the District of Columbia in delivering specialeducation, the District has been involved in several lawsuits regarding the provision of services.Likewise, on April 21, 2006, the District of Columbia was designated a “high-risk grantee” bythe U.S. Department of Education after failing to identify and correct non-compliance with therequirements of Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a federal lawthat guarantees children with disabilities the right to a “free and appropriate public education.”Specifically, DCPS failed to provide timely initial evaluations and reevaluations, to convene dueprocess hearing decisions in a timely manner, and did not place students with disabilities in their “least restrictive environment.” Other areas of non-compliance dealt with monitoring to ensurecompliance with the requirements of IDEA Part C relating to the early intervention services to

25 Council of the Great City Schools. “Financing Excellence in the District of Columbia Public Schools,” 2005.

http://www.cgcs.org/pdfs/DCfinance.pdf, Accessed 10 October 2007. In their presentation, the Council of the GreatCity Schools utilized a more precise 25.4% instead of 30% cited in the Master Education Plan. 26 Amy Totenberg, Rebecca Klemm, & Clarence J. Sundram. “Interim Report of the Evaluation Team for the Period

August 24, 2006 – January 17, 2007.” United States Court for the District of Columbia, 8 February 2007.

http://www.bazelon.org/pdf/BLACKMANInterim%20Report%20of%20Evaluation%20Team.pdf, Accessed 1November 2007.



25

infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. PERAA moves the responsibility of meeting the District’s legal obligations and ensuring compliance with the Blackman-Jones (timely due process hearing decisions and timely service delivery) and Petties (timely paymentsto private providers and reforms in the DCPS transportation system for special needs students)consent orders from DCPS to the OSSE.

Another underperforming function being transferred to the OSSE from DCPS is the Office of Federal Grants. As state previously, the U.S. Department of Education designated the District of Columbia as a “high-risk grantee” for receiving federal funds. The Council may wish to conductoversight of the Office of Federal Grants, now located within the OSSE, as they have been citedmultiple times for long-standing problems of fiscal mismanagement, inadequate monitoring of grantees, inadequate management of information systems, and noncompliance with the federalAmericans with Disabilities Act. The U.S. Department of Education also references other additional areas of noncompliance with program requirements found in their latest review. Inaddition, as the Board of Education previously approved the schedule for submission of programplans and grant applications, the Council may wish to request regular reporting of federal grants

for monitoring as a means of providing oversight.

27

PERAA authorized the transfer of federal grant compliance monitoring from DCPS to the OSSE.Having a strong state education agency will facilitate the Council’s work in helping promotehigh performing and high quality special education services and programs.

- Transfer of Authority for the Board of Education

All positions, personnel, property, records, and unexpended balances of appropriations,allocations and other funds available or to be made available to the District of Columbia Boardof Education that support state-level functions related to state education agency responsibilitiesand all powers, duties, and functions delegated to the Board of Education concerning theestablishment, development, and institution of state-level functions related to state educationagency responsibilities identified in Section 3 are transferred to the Office of the StateSuperintendent of Education.

- Transfer of Authority for Adult Education Programs

All positions, personnel, property, records, and unexpended balances of appropriations,allocations, and other funds available or to be made available to the University of the District of Columbia that supports state-level functions related to adult education or adult literacy and all of the powers, duties, and functions delegated to the University of the District of Columbiaconcerning the establishment, development, and institution of state-level functions related toadult education or adult literacy are transferred to the OSSE. The OSSE is also authorized toestablish fee rates for all adult education courses.

- Transfer of Authority for Early Intervention Programs

27 Henry L. Johnson. “Washington DC Assessment Letter,” 29 June 2006.

http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/nclbfinalassess/dc.html, Accessed 28 November 2007.



26

All positions, personnel, property, records, and unexpended balances of appropriations,allocations, and other funds available or to be made available to the Department of HumanServices that support functions related to the responsibilities of the Early Care andEducation Administration and the Early Intervention Program and all of the powers, duties, and

functions delegated to the Department of Human Services concerning the establishment,development, and institution of functions related to the Early Intervention Program aretransferred to the OSSE.

The Council of the District of Columbia will have to exercise appropriate oversight to ensure thatearly childhood education and adult literacy continue to be top priorities of the OSSE.Nonetheless, as stated in the OSSE Transition Plan and observed at a Committee on HumanServices hearing, disagreement remains on how and what components of the Department of Human Services’ Early Care and Education Administration will be transferred to the OSSE.According to the OSSE Transition Plan, this transfer will not occur until January 2008.28

Office of the Ombudsman for Public Education

An Ombudsman is serves as a “designated neutral” who advocates for a fair process andundertakes independent, fact-finding investigations in response to external or internal complaintsor questions about performance. Traditionally, an ombudsman does not have the final authorityor ability to resolve issues.

PERAA created the Office of the Ombudsman for Public Education to provide outreach toresidents and parents and provide parents and residents an entity to which they can express their concerns about public education in the District of Columbia. The Ombudsman will recommendpolicy changes and strategies to improve the delivery of public education that may requirelegislative action by Council. In addition, the Ombudsman, via the Deputy Mayor for Education,will submit monthly reports to the Council that includes the content and nature of inquiries,complaints, concerns, examinations pending, and recommendations within 90 days of the end of each school year.

Duties of the Ombudsman for Public Education

• Provide outreach to residents and parents, and to further this purpose, have thecooperation of all individuals within the public school system;

• Encourage communication between residents and the Mayor regarding all levels of publiceducation;

• Serve as a vehicle for citizens to communicate their complaints and concerns regardingpublic education through a single office;

• Respond to complaints and concerns from parents, students, teachers, and other Districtresidents concerning public education, including personnel actions, policies, and

28 Office of the State Superintendent of Education. “Building a Model State Education Agency for the People of the

District of Columbia,” http://newsroom.dc.gov/show.aspx?agency=seo&section=2&release=11523&year=

2007&file=file.aspx%2frelease%2f11523%2fFinal%2520OSSE%2520Transtion%2520Plan%25209%252010%252007%2520word.pdf, Accessed 1 October 2007.



27

procedures;• Determine the validity of any complaint quickly and professionally;• Examine and address valid complaints and concerns;• Generate options for a response, and offer a recommendation among the options;• Make a referral to the pertinent school officials, when appropriate;•

Identify systemic concerns raised by citizens, or otherwise received, related to publiceducation;• Maintain a database that tracks complaints and concerns received according to various

categories, including school level and location;• Submit to the Deputy Mayor for Public Education and the Chairman of the Council, on a

monthly basis, an analysis of the preceding month, including complaint and resolutiondata.

The Mayor shall submit a nomination for Ombudsman to the Council for a 45-day review,excluding days of Council recess. If the Council does not approve or disapprove the nomination,by resolution, within this 45-day review period, the nomination shall be deemed approved.

If a vacancy in the position of Ombudsman occurs as a consequence of resignation, disability,death, or other reason other than expiration of term, the Mayor shall appoint a replacement to fillthe unexpired term in the same manner as provided in subsection (a) of this section; provided,that the Mayor shall submit the nomination to the Council within 30 days after the occurrence of the vacancy.

- Term and Qualifications

The Ombudsman shall serve for a term of three (3) years, may be reappointed, and must have thefollowing qualifications:

• Be appointed on the basis of integrity;• Possess a demonstrated ability to analyze issues and matters of law, administration, and

policy;• Possess experience in the field of social work, counseling, mediation, law, policy, or

public administration or auditing, accounting, or other investigative field; and• Have management experience that demonstrates an ability to hire and supervise qualified

staff.

Nonetheless, the subordinate role of the Ombudsman in the larger governance structure shouldcause concern. Since the Ombudsman is an executive entity and lacks independence, itsneutrality will likely be questioned. Any issues requiring resolution will return to the Mayor or asubordinate executive agency for resolution, an inherent conflict of interest. In addition, reportsare supplied to the Deputy Mayor for Education before reaching the Council, which is differentfrom the OSSE and OPEFM who submit reports directly.

Several Councilmembers have shown an interest in creating “citizen education councils” toprovide an unparalleled opportunity to gather community input and provide opportunities for greater citizen involvement. Citizen councils could provide not only guidance on specific issues



28

and proposals, but vision and supplemental oversight pertaining to education. Citizenparticipation could greatly assist Councilmembers in oversight, agenda setting, policy formation,and decision-making. Previously, the Board of Education was empowered to create“neighborhood school councils” that would serve a similar purpose of informing members onissues that may require legislative action or oversight.

29There is a possibility that these entities

may be viewed as serving similar, if not redundant functions to the Ombudsman. This mayobscure the Ombudsman’s role; information gaps may emerge if an individual reports to a citizencouncil and not the Ombudsman, or vice versa. Therefore, a policy determination may benecessary for whether formal citizen councils should exist under the Ombudsman, with Councilmember participation, or chartered independently of the executive branch.

Interagency Collaboration and Services Integration Commission (Commission)

The Interagency Collaboration and Services Integration Commission is established to address theneeds of at-risk children in the District of Columbia. As an established statutory goal, theCommission will focus on reducing juvenile and family violence and promoting social and

emotional skills among children and youth through the oversight of a comprehensive integratedservice delivery system. The Commission retains the authority to:

• Combine local, federal, and other resources available to the participating education, lawenforcement, and human services agencies to provide comprehensive multi-disciplinaryassessments, integrated services, and evidence-based programs, as required by the title;

• Apply for, receive and disburse federal, state, and local funds relating to the duties andresponsibilities of the Commission;

• Utilize the funding provided pursuant to the Integrated Funding and Services for At-Risk Children, Youth, and Families;

• Exercise personnel authority for all employees of the Commission, consistent with theComprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978; and

• Exercise procurement authority, consistent with the Procurement Practices Act.

However, this section of the legislation is unclear from an operations and budgetary perspective.The legislation provides that the Commission may hire staff and obtain equipment, supplies,materials, and services necessary to carry out the functions of the Commission; however, theactual organizational structure and status of this entity is imprecise. Meanwhile, the fiscal impactstatement accompanying PERAA specified only one full-time employee to be hired to staff theCommission. It is unknown whether or not the Commission has been properly staffed to executeits mission. Since the executive will be challenged to coordinate wraparound services for at-risk District residents, the ambiguous structure may hinder the Commission’s progress.

Nonetheless, the legislation requires the Commission, which is comprised of the Mayor, theChairman of the Council, the Chair of the Committee on Human Services, the Presiding Judge,Family Court, Superior Court of the District of Columbia; the Deputy Mayor for Education; theCity Administrator; the State Superintendent of Education; the Chancellor; the Chair of thePublic Charter School Board, and relevant agency directors, to develop an information-sharing

29 5 DCMR §401, 1978, http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Title%205/chapter00007.htm?f=templates$fn=main-nf.htm$3.0#JD_401, Accessed 24 September 2007.



29

agreement within 90 days of the applicability of the title. Section 505 of the title permits theCommissions’ personnel to collect information from agencies participating in the agreement tofacilitate comprehensive multi-disciplinary assessments and the development andimplementation of integrated service plans.

The Commission is a critical design element of PERAA and offers a unique mechanism for achieving changes in how education, human, and social services are delivered in an integratedmanner. However, PERAA is silent on how the Commission may recommend legislative actionto the Council. In addition, a proactive Council may initiate, through the normal legislativeprocess, remedies that would relegate the Commission to irrelevance. Nonetheless, theopportunity afforded the Mayor in breaking barriers to effective service delivery is great;effective oversight and participation will determine the success of Commission initiatives.

Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization

Title VII of the act establishes a new Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization

(OPEFM). This entity is solely responsible for directing and managing the modernization or newconstruction of facilities within DCPS. Currently, modernization funding is in excess of $2.4billion, which will support the largest modernization effort ever undertaken by the District of Columbia government. The Council will have to exercise detailed and extensive oversight of thiseffort as OPEFM has also been granted independent procurement and personnel authority.

The OPEFM is required to comply with the First Source Employment Agreement Act of 1984and the requirements of the Small, Local, and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Developmentand Assistance Act of 2005 (LSDBE). Oversight of compliance in these two critical areas iscritical as well.

On October 2, 2007, the Council amended PERAA to transfer the duties of routine maintenanceof school buildings and property from the DCPS Office of Facilities Management to the newOFM. Meanwhile, Allen Lew, the first Executive Director of OPEFM, has stated that the Master Facilities Plan, which outlines the timetable for school construction projects over 15 years, doesnot reflect the $75 million spent in Summer 2007 on repairs or upcoming maintenance, estimatedto cost approximately $120 million. He has requested a year to study the plan, make changes,and hold community meetings to solicit feedback. At the October 2, 2007 legislative session, theCouncil addressed this request and amended the School Modernization Act of 2006 to providethat a revised Master Facilities Plan be submitted to the Council for approval by May 31, 2008.In addition, the Council required a work plan of activities and capital projects to be undertakenby the Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization in 2008 to be submitted to theCouncil within 60 days of the effective date of the Act (see Table 8).

However, at an oversight hearing on September 27, 2007, the Deputy Mayor for Education statedthat he is planning to close several public schools before the 2008-2009 school year. Asenrollment in DCPS declines and buildings become more expensive to maintain, OPEFM mayrecommend leasing, co-location, or the closing and disposition of school buildings. It was thesentiment of the Council that when the OPEFM submits the 2008 work program, it wouldprescribe a regimen of community input and community meetings. It serves public utility that



30

excess space be used for other public purposes, such as health care facilities, public libraries,recreation facilities, or co-location with other agencies, including charter schools. Presumably,disposal of school property will have to undergo the same process as any other public property.

Notably, there has been concern about the funding of capital projects and oversight may be

necessary; a forensic audit has already been recommended. Likewise, many reprogrammingrequests have emerged that withdraw money from the school modernization fund.

The Council should also be aware that the ability to enter into public/private developmentpartnerships has been transferred to the OPEFM. Section 3514.1 of Title 5 in the DCMR, definesa public/private development partnership (PPDP) as “one in which an individual or organization,not affiliated with DCPS, partners with DCPS to utilize a DCPS controlled real estate asset insuch a manner as to produce benefits to DCPS including . . . the provision of [other] goods andservices which further the mission of DCPS.”30 Theoretically, PPDPs allow governments toachieve goals that the government alone could not adequately complete alone. Most PPDPs aresole-source endeavors.

Granted, the failed contract with EdBuild was a PPDP that the Council had very specificreservations about. In Ward 3, there is an ongoing discussion on whether DCPS should enter intoa public/private development partnership with Roadside Development to build a residential uniton both the Tenley library and Janney Elementary School properties to earn revenue for bothentities. The PPDP would build a new public library, put a residential building with fewer than200 units adjacent to that library, build an underground parking garage to handle cars from boththe new residents and visitors to the library, and build an addition to Janney Elementary Schoolwhich sits behind the library building to relieve overcrowding. The community is dividedregarding this new development. Unlike the previous governance structure, PPDP contracts willarrive at Council without review from the Board of Education.

Lastly, the Council has a role in ensuring that schools meet minimum construction requirements,therefore, in addition to meeting educational specifications, the Council may wish to enforceother standards, including “green” buildings or ensuring LEED certification.

Public Charter and Private School Accountability Reform

School choice is a controversial issue in the District of Columbia, exacerbated by the poor performance of DCPS. Currently, the District of Columbia has a higher number of charter schools per student than any other state in America. Additionally, charter schools account for aquarter of the District's public school enrollment and should account for a majority of students by2014 if these trends continue.31

30 5 DCMR §3514.1, 2002, http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Title%205/chapter00031.htm?f=templates$fn=

main-nf.htm$3.0#JD_3514, Accessed 2 October 2007.31 Gregg Vanourek, State of the District of Columbia Charter School Sector 2006: A Ten-Year Review, Fight for

Children, 2006, http://www.fightforchildren.org/docs/State_of_DC_Charters_Oct0106_Final.pdf, Accessed 2November 2007.



31

PERAA authorized the PCSB as the sole chartering and monitoring entity in the District of Columbia. On or before July 30 of each year, the PCSB is required to submit to the Council anannual report on the PCSB’s chartering and monitoring activities. The Council should monitor the PCSB to ensure that charter schools meet their goals and that student achievementexpectations are met. Enrollment in the District’s public schools has decreased significantly

within the past five years while the number of charter schools has considerably increased asmore residents elect to send their children to established charter schools. Meanwhile, there is nolimit on the number of charter schools that may be opened in the District of Columbia. TheDistrict has an obligation to ensure that, regardless of the school selected, children have access toa top quality education. Consequently, the Council must work with the U.S. Congress to addressthe chartering of new schools. One possible reform consists of reconstitution of the PCSB as aDistrict of Columbia entity under the Office of the State Superintendent of Education.Consequently, school choice may be worthy of review and may require revision, especially after the Mayor’s recent modifications to the funding formula.

Likewise, the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program, a voucher program designed to send low-

income children in the District to purportedly better-performing private schools, has allowedsome students to take classes in unsuitable learning environments and from teachers withoutbachelor's degrees, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report.32 The GAOstated that the program lacks financial controls and has failed to check whether the participatingschools were accredited. The $12.9 million program, in its fourth year, currently serves 1,900students and provides funding to 58 participating private schools. The Council may desire tooversee the use of vouchers and the greater question of school choice in the District of Columbiaand how it affects at-risk students.

Substantive Oversight Opportunities

Considering the Council’s immense responsibility to provide oversight over public education inthe District of Columbia, several other policy areas immediately emerge. The following is a shortreview of pertinent policy areas subject to oversight by the Council of the District of Columbia.

Medicaid Recovery

The DCPS Medicaid Recovery Unit (MRU) generates federal reimbursement for health relatedservices provided to the DCPS’ special education students enrolled in the District’s Medicaidprogram. This revenue helps to offset the cost of providing the health care and support servicesoutlined in their Individualized Education Plan.33 However, in 2002, the District of ColumbiaAuditor found that the MRU did not properly and effectively manage the Medicaid recovery

32 United States General Accounting Office. District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program: Additional

Policies and Procedures Would Improve Internal Controls and Program Operations. Publication Number

GAO-08-9. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 2007,

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d089.pdf, Accessed 2 November 2007. 33 Sharon A. Baskerville. Dollars and $ense: A Proposal to Maximize the Efficiency of DC’s Health Care Dollars to

Improve Quality and Access for District Residents, District of Columbia Primary Care Association, May 2007,

http://www.dcpca.org/images/stories/dollars__sense--dc_hlth_care_financ__agency.pdf, Accessed 1 November 2007.



32

operations for DCPS because of a lack of sustained leadership, poor management, andinadequate staff and other resources.

34The Auditor prescribes many remedies that would

increase the amount reimbursed to DCPS by several million dollars annually, includingimprovements in budgeting, staffing, and protocol for Medicaid billing.

To accomplish its mission, the MRU submits claims to the Department of Health’s MedicalAssistance Administration (MAA) which administers the federal Medicaid program in theDistrict of Columbia. Pending enactment, the authority of the MAA will be transferred to thenew cabinet-level Department of Health Care Finance. The creation of this new department mayaid Medicaid recovery reform efforts. The Council will need to continue exerting oversight over this critical area to ensure efficient funding for all DCPS students.

Likewise, increasing federal reimbursement for special education services would relieve other budget pressures at DCPS and would help offset the cost of providing the health care and supportservices outlined in their Individualized Education Plan.35 The Mayor and Chancellor havealready asked the Council for additional funding to further enhance education reform, despitereassurances by the Mayor that education reform would be budget neutral. The Council shouldexert oversight over the multiple areas where cost savings can be achieved in order to reducesupplemental funding needs.

Personnel

Personnel issues after the enactment of PERAA may necessitate legislative action. On October 11, 2007, the Mayor of the District of Columbia submitted legislation to the Council of theDistrict of Columbia that would amend the Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978 toreclassify non-union employees in the District of Columbia Public Schools’ central office as “at-will” employees serving at the discretion of the Chancellor.36 This legislation is part of an effortto give the Chancellor of District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) the power to allowimmediate separation of designated employees in a planned restructuring of the system's centraladministration. While most government and civil service jobs nationwide are not at-willpositions, several jurisdictions have been experimenting with “radical civil service reform.”However, it is difficult to obtain an accurate picture of the extent to which at-will employment isexpanding in the public sector, or to ascertain its potential as a growing trend. No broad-rangingstudies have been conducted on the subject.37 The legislation also extends to OSSE and OPEFM.Currently, central office employees who are removed from a position have a contractual right tobe placed in a lower-ranking position in the system while maintaining their salary. Supporters

34 Office of the District of Columbia Auditor. D.C. Public Schools’ Medicaid Recovery Operations Require

Substantial Requirements, 2002, http://74.93.219.35/frames/DCA/Reports/DCA2002%20Final.pdf, Accessed 19November 2007.35 Sharon A. Baskerville. Dollars and $ense: A Proposal to Maximize the Efficiency of DC’s Health Care Dollars to

Improve Quality and Access for District Residents, District of Columbia Primary Care Association, May 2007,

http://www.dcpca.org/images/stories/dollars__sense--dc_hlth_care_financ__agency.pdf, Accessed 1 November 2007. 36 Council of the District of Columbia. B17-0450, Public Education Personnel Reform Amendment Act of 2007 .

http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/images/00001/20071022120605.pdf, Accessed 2 November 2007.37 Richard Green, Robert Forbis, Anne Golden, Stephen L. Nelson, & Jennifer Robinson. 2006. “On the Ethics of At-Will Employment in the Public Sector,” Public Integrity, 8(4): 305.



33

have stated that contract rights and due process has hampered previous superintendents who havesought in the past to downsize the school administration and remove poorly performingemployees. The Council will be asked to assist the Chancellor in attempts to build a more robustcentral administration that is more receptive and responsive when dealing with parents, teachers,and principals. However, many questions need to be answered as to how this proposed

legislation would impact the performance of employees or their willingness to remain as at-willemployees.

The literature regarding civil service reform highlights an ongoing controversy over theemployment-at-will doctrine and possible problems in implementing it. While reform of thecentral DCPS office may be necessary, how to achieve reform remains the current matter of discussion. It will be important to analyze political feasibility along with the equity, efficiency,and effectiveness of this measure. In addition, there is a risk of lawsuits or class-action suit fromseparated employees. Nonetheless, there are serious concerns with the expansion of at-willemployment in the public sector that are generally not well understood. Moreover, very littleattention has been given to the subject in public management literature. The problems are legal,

managerial, and political in nature, and they bear directly on matters of public trust andinstitutional integrity, complicating the management of at-will employment relations.

A review of literature regarding civil service reform confirms that the pecuniary benefits of working in the public sector are meager compared to the private sector. According to Green, Forbis, Golden, Nelson, and Robinson,38 studies consistently indicate that public employees stayin the public sector because it offers relatively secure employment and other intrinsicinducements, such as challenging and rewarding work, the achievement of altruistic ideals, thedesire to make a difference, the exercise of power toward that end, and participation in the policyprocess. In one case study of federal employees, the loss of job security, without change incompensation, caused morale to plummet and increased turnover comparable to the privatesector.39 This likely caused a high loss of institutional memory and experience.

Nonetheless, at-will employment may better suit the next generation of workers who enter theworkforce anticipating that their career path will involve a number of different jobs withdifferent organizations. Younger workers no longer expect to form long-term psychologicalcontracts with their employers; employees under 30 years of age tend to move from job to job,and this is facilitated by at-will employment. This epitome of freedom of contract is veryattractive to young people and illustrates a possible generational trend that may be at play insupport of at-will employment. While this may be positive for public sector managers who canattract and hire young, energetic employees, these employees likely have less experience and aremore likely to leave, taking their institutional knowledge elsewhere. Likewise, it is less certainthat when they get older, if they will strive for increased work protections. Lastly, as the agencymoves towards a revolving door for younger employees, the cost of hiring and trainingemployees becomes a larger budgetary constraint.

Another argument regarding at-will employment is that the shift to at-will employment seesmarkets as a solution to government inefficiency. However, governments are not markets. In

38 Ibid.39 Ibid.



34

fact, government exists because of market failure and because markets fail to serve the publicinterest and values such as equity, representation, and responsibility. This form of civil servicereform minimizes the technical competence, social equity, and moral character in favor of partisan allegiance, loyalty, political responsiveness, and personal connections. However, theascendancy of complex bureaucracies and a developed economy may prevent politicization of

public sector employees. The size of state bureaucracies, which employ thousands of employees,and their sheer complexity, negates coordinated efforts to politicize entire bureaucracies. At-willemployment may permit greater efficiency within a large agency.

It is arguable that changes in electoral politics may mitigate the looming problems of favoritismand politicization. Today, with the end of the spoils systems, votes no longer translate into jobs.Instead, interest group politics, lucrative government contracts, and the privatization of government functions fuel elections and electoral politics. Who gets what from government is nolonger determined by the simple formula of votes for jobs; rather, it is a complex calculusinvolving contracts and large private interests. Hence, the move toward a “hollow state” withextensive privatization and outsourcing of governmental functions has diminished the

importance of the individual government employee in electoral coalition building and enhancedthe importance of satisfying large private organizational interests. As a consequence, jobs are nolonger traded for votes on a large-scale basis, as they once were. While critics’ fears that at-willemployment would bring a return to spoils once employee protections may not materialize,caution should be maintained towards excessive contracting and their negative costs.

Many arguments have been made about the ability of at-will employment to motivate employees.These arguments entail assumptions about what motivates people to work. Typically it is arguedthat public servants lack true accountability and enjoy too much job security and therefore, theyshould be subjected to competition for the work they perform. This argument assumes that publicemployees are lethargic and unresponsive; these theorists believe that civil servants must face therisks and uncertainties of private-sector employment to re-energize them. In this theory, civilservice protections serve as a barrier to real productivity, efficiency, and responsiveness. Thismarket approach to motivation assumes that people are driven primarily by economic incentives. This environment, perpetuated by a need to survive, is an environment where employees mustcompete or fail. Failure would conclude with the loss of employment. However, many studiesdemonstrate that financial incentives only play an important role in motivating employees whenthey are considering whether or not to take or leave a position, and ironically may even reduceworkers’ motivation when tied to performance evaluations and merit reviews. Instead, intrinsicfactors, such as the challenging nature of the work, career ladders, being appreciated, and goodcolleagues, bring far more job satisfaction in work life.40 These intrinsic factors are dependent onjob security. Fear of losing one’s job may not motivate, but may adversely affect performanceand the ability to maintain a stable workforce. In addition, this disproportionately focuses power on the manager under at-will employment; the employee must perform at the exclusion of thepersonal relationships that usually enhance productivity. This power may also inflate fear anddistrust among subordinates. Even a manager’s mood may become an unduly stressful matter for employees. The impact of the manager’s words and actions becomes more acute, and this caneasily retard or pervert organizational performance despite the best of intentions.

40 Richard Green, Robert Forbis, Anne Golden, Stephen L. Nelson, & Jennifer Robinson. 2006. “On the Ethics of At-Will Employment in the Public Sector,” Public Integrity, 8(4): 305.



35

There are inherent difficulties in organizing a large at-will workforce. Top-performingemployees may leave DCPS to seek employment in other organizations (for example,surrounding school districts) that are less risky and less politicized. The politicization of theDCPS central office also would permit increased opportunities for patronage from the executive

branch as well as permit a new Chancellor to fire the entire central office staff. Pastreorganization of the central administration has not lead to improvements.41 Lastly, extending at-will classification to teachers may have unintended consequences. Specifically, this mayexacerbate the teacher shortage as teachers seek “safer” positions in surrounding jurisdictions.Likewise, it is difficult to reliably measure how a teacher is performing; a better solution may bea pay-for-performance plan.

Nonetheless, during the Council’s legislative session on December 18, 2007, a majority of theCouncil endorsed a modified version of the “Public Education Personnel Reform Amendment

Act of 2007” after first reading.42 The revised legislation amended the District of ColumbiaGovernment Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978 to establish employment without tenurefor DCPS central office employees, OSSE, and OPEFM. It will also require that the Mayor seek avoluntary separation incentive for certain DCPS employees and requires the Mayor to submit anevaluation of the personnel reform provisions of this act in September 2012.

The Council may wish to pursue alternatives such as advocating for performance managementprocedures, use of existing summary removal procedures, hastening the firing timeline, thetemporary use of at-will employment, additional protections against wrongful termination, or enactment of other model personnel legislation (see the MODEL Employment Termination Act and Montana’s Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act).

It may also concern the Council that, according to the OSSE’s transition plan, 123 employeeswere transferred from DCPS to the OSSE, increasing the size of the OSSE from 85.5 employees

to approximately 370 employees as of October 1, 2007.43 Nonetheless, it is difficult to comparethe District’s state education agency to other states due to our unique geopolitical structure.

Additionally, the Council should exert continued oversight over executive pay in publiceducation. Since DCPS is a subordinate agency under the Mayor, a consideration should be madeas to whether DCPS salaries should be similar to executive salaries provided in other Districtagencies. Reportedly, the Chancellor has offered the deputy chancellor at DCPS and the chief of staff salaries that exceed the $152,686 cap for such supervisory positions.44 They will receive$200,000 while the Chancellor will receive $275,000 plus signing and performance bonuses.

41 Council of the District of Columbia. Committee of the Whole. Public Education Personnel Reform Amendment

Act of 2007. Hearing, 2 November 2007.42 Council of the District of Columbia. B17-0450, Public Education Personnel Reform Amendment Act of 2007 .

http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/images/00001/20071022120605.pdf, Accessed 2 November 2007.43 Office of the State Superintendent of Education. “Building a Model State Education Agency for the People of the

District of Columbia,” http://newsroom.dc.gov/show.aspx?agency=seo&section=2&release=11523&year=2007&file=file.aspx%2frelease%2f11523%2fFinal%2520OSSE%2520Transtion%2520Plan%25209%252010%252

007%2520word.pdf, Accessed 1 October 2007.44 Nikita Stewart, “Council Members Irked by Pay Plan,” Washington Post , 12 July 2007, p. B1,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/11/AR2007071102148.html, Accessed 2 October 2007.



36

Chancellor Rhee has also offered six-figure salaries to several other staff members. According toDistrict of Columbia Department of Human Resources, the pay range for governmentsupervisors who are not appointed by the mayor is $56,740 to $152,686.45 The Council hasalready passed an emergency resolution to give the Mayor the authority to offer up to $279,900 ayear for each of six positions, including the Chancellor’s, while a hearing on the “Executive

Service Pay Schedule Emergency Act of 2007” occurred on September 26, 2007 that wouldincrease the number of pay levels for executive service.46

Procurement (Textbooks, Supplies, etc.)

The District of Columbia Office of Contracting and Procurement has encountered significantproblems that have lead to decreased transparency, accountability, and competition inprocurement; many of these difficulties are duplicated within the DCPS Office of Contracts andAcquisitions (OCA). After PERAA, the Council will be able to extend oversight to the DCPSOCA which has failed in its mission to “consistently provide efficient and effectiveprocurement” as well as timely service for DCPS.47 However, OCA may not be effective and

may require restructuring and overhaul to improve the tracking and elimination of wastefulpractices. This would ensure provision of the best possible services, products, and fair prices.DCPS has traditionally been challenged to effectively manage and oversee its procurementfunction and therefore, oversight may determine whether the DCPS procurement systemincorporates best practices and accepted key principles for protecting taxpayer resources fromfraud, waste, and abuse. Nonetheless, OPEFM and the interagency Commission also haveindependent procurement authority, which signifies a need of the Council to exert oversight for these entities as well, or a decision to integrate the independent procurement functions with theDistrict of Columbia’s Office of Contracting and Procurement.

45 District of Columbia Government Salary Schedule: Management Supervisory Service,

http://dchr.dc.gov/dcop/frames.asp?doc=/dcop/lib/dcop/services/employee_comp/salary_schedules/2007/Management_Supervisory_Service_(MS)_FY07.pdf, Accessed 2 October 2007.46 Council of the District of Columbia, PR17-0382, Executive Service Pay Schedule Emergency Act of 2007 ,

http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/images/00001/20070713104508.pdf, Accessed 2 October 2007.47 Office of Contracts and Acquisitions, District of Columbia Public Schools,http://www.k12.dc.us/offices/oca/oca.htm, Accessed 2 October 2007.



37

Comparison to Other State and Urban School District Governance Structures

Like the District of Columbia, the public education systems in Boston, Chicago, and New York have undergone mayoral takeovers although the characteristics of each school district varyimmensely. Of this small sample, Boston and the District of Columbia are of similar size and

budget as compared to the massive Chicago and New York school districts.

Characterist ic Boston, MA Chicago, IL New York, NY Washington, DC

Population 589,141 2,896,016 8,008,278 500,000+

Student Enrollment 57,000 420,982 1.1 Million 50,270

Annual Budget $747,100,000 $4.4 Billion $15 Billion+ $1.Billion+

Number of Schools148 schools, 18 are

pilot schools

623, 27 are charter

schools1,400+

167 schools and

centers

Total # of Employees 9,133 44,417 130,000 8,329

Table 2: Selected Characteristics of Comparison Cities48

The table below illustrates the state governance structure under which each takeover took place.

Then, on the following pages, graphic representations of these cities’ local education systems arepresented. Alongside the new governance structure of the District of Columbia, it should beimmediately recognizable that each of these cities and their states has a separate, independentchief state schools officer and a state education agency.

Governance

BodyBoston, MA Chicago, IL New York, NY

State LegislatureThe legislature has a joint

education, arts and humanitiescommittee.

The legislature has a Houseappropriations – elementary and

secondary education committee, a

House elementary and secondaryeducation committee, and a

Senate education committee.

The legislature appoints all of themembers of the state board of

education. The legislature has anAssembly education committee,

an assembly library and educationtechnology committee and aSenate education committee.

Governor The Governor appoints 7 of the 9

voting members of the StateBoard of Education.

The Governor appoints all of thevoting members of the State

Board of Education

The Governor does not appointany voting members of the StateBoard of Education or the Chief

State School Officer.

Chief State

School Officer

The Chief State School Officer is

appointed by the State Board of Education.






There are 9 voting members of theState Board of Education, 7 are

appointed by the governor, 1 is ahigh school student elected by thestate student advisory council, and

1 is the Chancellor of higher education, appointed by the Board

of Higher Education.

The Governor appoints all 9voting members of the state board

of education.

There are 16 voting members of the state board of education. All of the voting members are appointed

by the legislature.

48 See U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, County and City Data Book: 2000 (2002), at 644-61,http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/00ccdb/cc00_tabC1.pdf, Access 20 December 2007.



38

Governance

BodyBoston, MA Chicago, IL New York, NY

Local SchoolBoards

Mayor appoints all 7 SchoolCommittee members to four year terms.

Mayor appoints all 5 members of the local school board and theboard president.

Five of the 13 members areappointed by the 5 borough

presidents, 8 are appointed by themayor and include the Chancellor who serves as chairperson. Thereare 32 community school district

boards in the school district.

LocalSuperintendents

The Boston Public SchoolsSuperintendent is appointed by the

School Committee.

The Chicago Public Schools CEOis appointed by the Mayor of

Chicago.

The Chancellor is appointed bythe Mayor. The community school

district superintendents areappointed by the Chancellor.

Table 3: Comparisons of State K-12 Governance Structures49

In their analysis of PERAA, the Council of the Great City Schools stated that DCPS has been

beleaguered by multiple and intrusive governance layers and a poorly defined internalorganizational structure. In most urban school systems, the internal structure and alignment of staff and functions are usually more important to efficiency and effectiveness than is the external governance and organizational structure. 50

As stated earlier, the Boston, Chicago, and New York school districts, along with most other school districts nationwide, are monitored by a state education agency, a separate state-levelentity. In the District of Columbia, our geopolitical situation spurs a unique development whereboth the state and local education agencies are under a single authority: the Mayor. Therefore, itbecomes unclear how conflict of interest problems can be resolved.

Thus, accountability remains an issue. PERAA rearranges organizational boxes and consolidatesauthority but the public may have difficulty holding its elected officials accountable because allinformation about their performance self-released. In addition, a measure of accountability for education is removed under the proposed changes because the Mayor is in charge of bothoperations and oversight at the same time.

The following illustrations depict the local governance structures for Boston, Chicago, and NewYork City. The District of Columbia’s modified structure is illustrated in Figure 1 for comparison.

49 Education Commission of the States, 50-State K-12 Governance Structures Database,

http://www.ecs.org/ecsmain.asp?page=/html/educationissues/governance/govk12db_intro.asp, Accessed 16 October

2007.50 Council of the Great City Schools, Analysis of Mayor Adrian Fenty’s Plan for the District of Columbia Public

Schools, 2007, http://www.cgcs.org/images/Publications/DC_Analysis.pdf, Accessed 17 October 2007.



39

Illinois State Board of

Education

Illinois Department of

Education

Mayor of Chicago

Board of Education

Chief Executive

Officer

Office of Information,

Outreach, and

Ombudsman Services

Local School Councils(providing site-based

management)

Chicago Public

Schools

CPS Charter Schools

Massachusetts State Board of

Education

Massachusetts Department of

Education

Mayor of Boston

School Committee

Superintendent

Boston Public Schools

Ombudsman

Figure 3: Boston's Education Governance Structure Figure 4: Chicago's Education Governance Structure



40

Figure 5: New York City's Education Governance Structure

New York Board of

Regents

State Education

Department

Mayor of New York

City

Panel for Education

Policy

Deputy Mayor for

Education and

CommunityDevelopment

Department of

Education

School Construction

Authority

City University of

New York

Community District

and High School

Superintendents

New York City

Public Schools

Other Authorities,

Boards,

Commissions, and

Corporations

School Support

Organization

Integrated Service

Centers

City-Wide Public

Advocate



41

Boston, MA Chicago, IL New York, NY Washington, DC


Sets state-wide policy. Sets state-wide policy. Sets state-wide policy.Has advisory and

approval authority.

Mayor

Has overall fiscal and

political responsibility.Appoints schoolcommittee and submits

budget.

Appoints Board of Education and CEO.

Has overall fiscal and

political responsibility.Appoints Panel for Education Policy and

submits budget.

Has overall fiscal and(arguably) political

responsibility Appoints

4 members of the StateBoard of Education

(until 2009 when all areelected). Appoints

Chancellor.

Deputy Mayor for Education

N/A N/A

Oversees andcoordinates the

operations of theDepartment of

Education, SchoolConstruction Authority,City University of NewYork, and Department

of Youth andCommunity

Development.

Oversees andcoordinates the

operations of publiceducation, including

development andsupport of programs to

improve servicedelivery.

LocalDepartment of

EducationN/A N/A

Sets local policy,

provides system-wideservices to accomplish

goals.

Led by the Deputy

Mayor for Education.

Local Board of Education

School Committee setslocal policy. Has

fiduciary and policyoversight authority.

Hires and evaluates theSuperintendent.

Sets local policy. Hasfiduciary and policyoversight authority.

Hires and evaluates theCEO.

Replaced by Panel for Education Policy withadvisory and approval

authority.

N/A

Superintendent

Develops, recommends,and implements

strategies to meet

educational goals.Recommends budget

allocation.

CEO implements State

and Local Board policy.

Chancellor managesdaily operation of

school system, incl.local education policy.

Chancellor managesdaily operation of

school system, incl.local education policy,

but not facilities.

Ombudsman?Yes, under

Superintendent.Yes, under CEO.

Yes, city-wide advocateunder Mayor.

Yes, under DeputyMayor for Education.

IndependentOffice of Facilities

Management?

No. No. Yes. Yes.

Local EducationEntities

N/AProvide site-based

management of eachschool.

Has 32 CommunityEducation Councils;

each oversees aCommunity School

District that includespublic elementary,

intermediate, and junior high schools.

N/A

Table 4: Overview of Current Governance Structures51

In this comparison, the District of Columbia has set a unique course of policy-making in publiceducation. In Boston, Chicago, and New York, their respective state boards of education set

51 Adapted from Parthenon Group Study of the District of Columbia Public Schools, and from the Boston, Chicago,and New York municipal and public school system websites.



42

policy for the state; the District of Columbia’s State Board of Education will not have thisauthority. Conversely, in Boston and Chicago, the local board of education sets policy while inNew York, the locally-based “Panel for Education Policy” only has advisory and approvalauthority.

In many respects, the new governance structure within the District of Columbia is most similar tothe New York City model, which includes a Deputy Mayor in charge of education, a Chancellor in charge of day-to-day operations of the school system, and an independent facilitiesmanagement office. One major difference is that in New York City, the Community EducationCouncils are consulted on many important matters and provide an opportunity for the communityinput on educational issues. A second distinction is that the ombudsman is independent of theschool system and serves as an advocate for the entire city.

The Role of Community Participation

Community input, and to a lesser extent, the idea of participatory governance, is a valued

commodity and has played a substantial role in education reform in the District of Columbia. TheCouncil and a plurality of stakeholders and community organizations have been persistent inrequesting community participation, as demonstrated through input opportunities at Councilhearings, public roundtables, and town halls. Effective participation by all stakeholders has cometo be viewed as a necessary condition for promoting good governance. As the only independentbody involved in the District’s public education system, the Council can play a central role inproviding a reliable conduit for community input in addition to the difficult task of modulatingmessages and dealing with various stakeholders and interest groups.

Currently, three formal methods of community input exist. For state-level issues, the State Boardof Education hosts monthly meetings and permits public witnesses to testify. Likewise, for statutory and oversight concerns, the Council invites the public to testify at hearings. Lastly, theOmbudsman serves as a vehicle for citizens to communicate their complaints and concernsregarding public education through. Nonetheless, the modified governance structure remainsunclear about the vehicles for community input and voter involvement. An extension of theprevious discussion of “citizen councils” and their potential impact, there is no uniform methodof community input and most of the alternative routes lead to the executive branch rather thanthe Council, the only independent oversight body.

Currently, the routes for community input and involvement in education matters include:

• Council of the District of Columbia• Mayor • Ombudsman• State Board of Education• District of Columbia Public Schools

• Principals (and staff)• Local School Restructuring Teams• Ward-based “citizen councils”• Other advocacy or stakeholder organizations





44

As of October 1, 2007, the Office of Policy Analysis hired a Senior Policy Analyst withspecialized education and human services expertise. In addition, the Office of Policy Analysishas sponsored the creation of the Policy Advisory Council to provide policy guidance andsupport and enhance operations of the Office of Policy Analysis by providing additionalspecialized policy expertise and guidance on the multiple and diverse policy areas reviewed.

Lastly, it is necessary that the Council establish a relationship with the executive that will resultin the Council being informed of ongoing developments and policy initiatives in addition topermitting receipt of requested information in a timely manner. This may also include regularlyscheduled meetings of the appropriate executive personnel with the Council staff membersassociated with education reform.

The Role of the Council of the District of Columbia: Budget & Finance

The relationship between the legislative and the executive branches largely determines thesuccess or failure of democratic government. Moreover, the budget, because it is at the same

time the most important instrument of legislative control and of executive management, is at thevery core of democratic government. No one who fails to recognize this dual function can fullyappreciate the true significance of budgets or appraise the difficult problems which must besolved in connection with them.55

PERAA did not streamline the budget process to any measurable degree, reduce layers of budgetapproval or interference, or make it easier to align instructional goals with financial resources.On the contrary, it may cost the city more money just to transfer powers and authority.56

In a chronic breakdown, DCPS often failed to properly align spending with the instructionalgoals of the school system. The Mayor and Chancellor should be expected to advocate for improved alignment. Traditionally, the system has yielded extremely poor academic results for students and adults. Likewise, with such a large number of students testing below proficiency,remediation and support programs may be necessary. This will obligate additional resources for programs (smaller class sizes, specialized instruction, etc.) that have yet to be determined.According to data provided by DCPS the total cost of implementing all of the recommendationswithin the Master Education Plan would be $82.6 million in FY 2007, $91.4 million in FY 2008,and $90.1 million in FY 2009. Thus, adherence to the Master Education Plan will requireadditional resources. It is not clear as to whether or not this projection has been factored into theFY 2008 budget and financial plan, or will be factored in at a later time. The Mayor andChancellor have not indicated their future budget requirements, but the Council should expect tocontinue to see large requests emanating from the executive, despite assertions by the executiveduring the PERAA debate that the governance change would be budget neutral or resulting insavings.

55 Harold D. Smith, “The Budget as an Instrument of Legislative Control and Executive Management,” address

delivered before the Municipal Finance Officers Association, 9 June 1944. 56 Council of the Great City Schools, Analysis of Mayor Adrian Fenty’s Plan for the District of Columbia Public

Schools, 2007, http://www.cgcs.org/images/Publications/DC_Analysis.pdf, Accessed 17 October 2007.



45

Reallocation of Funds by the Council

In PERAA, Section 104 provides the Mayor with budget authority for the public schools.However, in FY 2009, when it receives the budget, the Council may reallocate funds on aprogram level, but may not exercise line-item budget authority. This restriction does not apply to

special education programs. After FY 2009, the Mayor will also submit expenditures for FY2010 and FY 2011 based on the annual budget, as well as estimated expenditures for the currentschool year, and actual expenditures from the previous year.

This is a dramatic change from the existing budget authority granted to the Council. Previously,the Council had only approval authority over the DCPS budget. With the ability to reallocatefunds, the Council must, collectively and individually, determine how much it will exert its ownpolicy agenda via the education budget. Through reallocation, the Council can choose to either curtail or bolster Mayoral priorities in education.

Budgeting, the Universal Per Student Funding Formula, & the Weighted Student Formula

Before PERAA, the DCPS annual operating budget was developed through a multi-stageprocess. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) applied the Universal Per StudentFunding Formula (UPSFF) to the preliminary annual enrollment audit to determine theapproximate amount of funding that DCPS should receive. The OCFO also added the estimated“state-level costs” that DCPS incurred by serving as the District’s state education agency. Thestate-level responsibilities included functions such as the administration of federal grants,employee certification, and the conduct of hearings and appeals. The Superintendent developedan operating budget based on the amount calculated by the OCFO and submitted it to the Boardof Education for approval. The DCPS budget detailed funding for individuals schools using theWeighted Student Formula (WSF). After approving the budget, the Board of Educationtransmitted it to the Mayor. The Mayor then proposed an operating budget based on theapplication of the funding formula to the final enrollment audit and any adjustments that hedeemed necessary. The Council would exercise oversight over DCPS through public hearingsand reviews of the budget where a funding recommendation would emerge. This would result inapproval of the budget. District law required the Board of Education to submit a proposed budgetto the Mayor in December of each year, and required the Board to hold hearings prior to thattransmittal. The law further required the Mayor to include a proposed budget for DCPS in theannual budget submitted to the Council.

The purpose of the UPSFF is to ensure that every public school student in the District of Columbia is funded at the same level, regardless of the student’s choice of public school.Theoretically, the UPSFF de-politicizes the funding process by providing a defined, stable, andpredictable budgetary structure. Being linked to enrollment, the USPFF also creates competitionthat encourages school improvement. The UPSFF is defined statutorily, and is usually revisedthrough the annual Budget Support Act. The second formula, the WSF, is defined by DCPSrules. It is used to distribute local funds to each school as well as a share to DCPS centraladministration. Title 38, Chapter 29 of the D.C. Official Code details the UPSFF and arequirement that the Mayor and Council need to review and revise the USPFF every four years.57

57 DC ST 1981 § 31-2901



46

In addition, the UPSFF is used to determine annual operating funding for the District's traditionaland charter public schools. It also controls facilities funding for the public charter schools.However, there is an ongoing discussion over the inequity of spending at DCPS and whether additional funds should be directed to charter schools. During the Council’s recent hearing on theBudget Support Act, issues were raised regarding the UPSFF and recommendations for

improvement are imminently expected from the OSSE.

58

The UPSFF is distinct from the WSF. The WSF is a method of allocating resources to eachschool within DCPS based on certain characteristics of the student population, not based on thenumber of students and/or personnel. It decentralizes funding from the district level to the schoollevel. Resources for the school are not determined by the traditional full-time equivalent (FTE)count but by the actual demographic characteristics of the students within the school.59 Importantly, within PERAA, the Council has the ability, by a two-thirds vote, to modify theWSF. While the Board of Education infrequently modified the WSF, it is possible to revise theformula to increase funding to a ward’s schools, increasing political pressure on members of theCouncil.

Finally, the District of Columbia government must ensure that the appropriate funding levels areproposed and approved to achieve true education reform and academic success for all residents.Any lack of resources may result in continued failure.

Setting the Agenda and Identifying Policy Priorities

The Council, like other democratic assemblies in the United States, can insert themselves into thepolicymaking process in two basic ways: reactively, by amending and/or vetoing executiveproposals and providing oversight or proactively, by setting, initiating, and passing legislativeproposals. Notably, while oversight is typically practiced reactively, oversight may be both a

reactive and proactive activity. The Council can be more proactive by creating an oversightagenda and utilizing oversight as a means to improve programs and policy or lead to the creationof new policy. Therefore, the Council, like Congress, has the ability and proclivity to be both aproactive and reactive assembly.60

While there are many actors expounding on and influencing education reform, no one has amonopoly on setting the agenda. Nominally, Section 103 of PERAA gave the Mayor statutoryauthority “over all curricula, operations, functions, budget, personnel, labor negotiations and

collective bargaining agreements, facilities, and other education-related matters.” 61 Consequently,

the executive has taken the lead position in promoting education reform. This has elicited

58

Hom Raj Acharya, Education Policy Research Analyst at the Office of the State Superintendent of Education,personal communication to the author, 10 October 2007.59 Mike Petko, “Weighted Student Formula (WSF): What Is It and How Does It Impact Educational Programs in

Large Urban Districts?” National Educators Association, 2005,

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1b/c4/8b.pdf, Accessed 1October 2007.60 Gary W. Cox & Scott Morgenstern, “Latin America’s Reactive Assemblies and Proactive Presidents,”

Comparative Politics 33, 2001: 171-189.61 Council of the District of Columbia. DC Act. 17-0038, District of Columbia Education Reform Amendment Act of




47

reaction by the Council. This dichotomous relationship emphasizes the proactive/reactiveenvironment under which the Council is operating. It also provides an opportunity for growthand alignment of priorities.

Education reform encompasses a vast array of initiatives, programs, and policies and a

systematic agenda for oversight is necessary. The creation of a comprehensive oversight agendawould proactively demonstrate Council priorities and would permit the Council to provideoversight in a more efficient and effective manner. If shared with the executive, the agendawould permit increased time for preparation and scheduling of appropriate municipaladministrators. Likewise, it could foster increased communication between the legislature andthe executive. Shared with the public, it would greatly enhance ongoing transparency efforts.Appropriately, a strategic oversight agenda facilitates legislation, permitting Councilmembers totake credit for improving education. The breadth of legislation depends on how proactive andinvolved the Council seeks to be.

An oversight agenda can be designed in several ways. Oversight can be organized by relevant

executive agency and department or by policy themes and each approach is illustrated in theappendix. The table below compares the arguments for and against each model.

Executive Agency and Department Policy Themes

For Against For Against

PerspectiveProvides a general

view of agency

functions (global).

Does not permit

substantive study of

any specific policy

area.

Provides substantive

information on a

specific policy area

(narrow).

Does not permitgeneral view of

agency functions.

ParticipationFew administrators

are invited.

If programs

intersect with other agencies, a singular

administrator may

not have completeinformation.

All relevant

agencies would beable to provide

testimony andinformation.

A larger number of

agency heads andstaff may be

required,

complicatingcommunication

Coordination

Easier to organize

and schedule

administrators.

The subject may be

too broad for

effective oversight.

Permits the Council

to focus on specific

policy priorities.

More difficult to

organize and

schedule

administrators.

Budget

The budget is

already organized

by department and

agency.

Difficulty arises

when

interactions/policies

/priorities cross

budget authorities.

Governance is

organized by policy

themes and

interactions.

-

Data

Data tend to be

available on anagency level.

Data systems acrossagencies are too

independent of eachother.

Permitsconsolidation of

data to provide for oversight or policy

evaluation.

Difficulties arise in

joining disparatedata sources.

Interagency

Communication-

This model does not

necessitate

coordination and

data sharing of

executive agencies.

Compels

interagencycommunication and

data sharing

between executive

agencies.

-

Ownership and Consists of a high- Does not allow Council can -



48

Executive Agency and Department Policy Themes

For Against For Against

Taking Credit profile, possibly

newsworthy,

hearing.

Council to take

credit for advancing

a particular policy.

demonstrate

dedication to a

particular policy

area of interest

while engagingadministrators.

Table 5: Comparison of the Agency Approach and Policy Theme Models of Oversight

Effective oversight may be undermined when approached from an agency or departmentperspective. For example, the Office of State Superintendent of Education includes a wide arrayof policy areas, including federal grants, early childhood education, monitoring nutritionservices, and school improvement. However, none of these issues are the sole responsibility of the OSSE. Even with expert panels adjusted for individual topics, the hearing would becomeunwieldy and inevitably, questions would remain unanswered. The alternative approach followsthat an individual policy area would be selected while relevant administrators and expert panelsare invited to discuss that particular theme. For example, for a discussion of school

improvement, the Deputy Mayor for Education, the State Superintendent of Education, and theChancellor would be expected to testify while expert panels on school improvement wouldcontribute theories on best practices.

The Office of Policy Analysis recommends that the Council create and adopt a coherent,comprehensive oversight agenda to address legislative priorities. An agenda organized by policytheme would enhance the Council’s ability to be proactive in education reform within the Districtof Columbia. It would facilitate the Council’s role in influencing education reform and wouldpermit the Council to be strategic in its new role.

The Role of the Council of the District of Columbia: Survey of Policy Areas

Concomitant with the Mayor’s authority over the District of Columbia’s education system, theCouncil has multiple opportunities to support the Mayor’s initiatives or alternatively shapeeducation policy through legislative action. Likewise, due to the unique geopolitical structure of the District of Columbia, whereas it is both a city and a state, the Council is provided atremendous opportunity to pursue progressive and proactive education reform. The following is asurvey of existing policy areas for the Council to consider. This is not an inclusive digest of possible policy priorities; there are many other areas that the Council may provide oversight or act upon. Many of these selections derive from PERAA, Title V of District of ColumbiaMunicipal Regulations (DCMR), the Master Education Plan, the Office of the StateSuperintendent’s Transition Plan, Council reports, hearings, and testimony, and priorities

expressed by individual members of the Council.

Members of the Council should be aware that the Department of Education, led by the DeputyMayor for Education, is currently revising Title V of the DCMR to reflect their policy prioritiesand governing mechanisms. Nevertheless, until these new rules are available, PERAA explicitlystates that all rules, orders, obligations, determinations, grants, contracts, licenses, andagreements of the Board of Education and the District of Columbia Public Schools are to remainin effect until lawfully amended, repealed, or modified.



49

Title IV, Section 403 of PERAA removed the Board of Education from its traditionalpolicymaking and oversight role and recast it as the State Board of Education, a “state” entitywith limited capability with advisory and approval functions. This modification is exceptionalbecause the State Board of Education is comprised of locally elected and appointed members,

reverting to a fully-elected local body beginning January 2, 2009. Nonetheless, the Mayor wasgranted authority to specify the Board’s organization structure, staff, budget, operations, expensepolicy procedures, and other matters affecting the Board’s functions, possibly complicating theindependence of the State Board of Education and their ability to set the agenda in educationreform.

It is important to note that the repeal of these provisions of the Home Rule Act (relative to publiceducation) do not, in fact, enhance the Council’s legislative authority; this was never limited.However, PERAA has enhanced the Council’s ability to set policy. Nonetheless, some believethat the Council’s powers are remain limited because PERAA expressly assigns specificpolicymaking authority to a number of existing offices and departments, as well as the newly

created offices, committees, and commissions. This strict interpretation of Title I, Section 103(a)of PERAA would indicate that the Council’s ability to legislate or create policy remains limited.Consequently, from a legislative standpoint, if the Mayor is granted all authority to “govern thepublic schools in the District of Columbia,” the Council may be inclined to follow the lead of theMayor on educational matters.

Nevertheless, this assertion is imperfect in its reasoning. While legislation may limit a legislativebody’s legislative or policymaking role, through expressed delegations and sub-delegations of authority, the legislative branch of government still retains its express lawmaking power to takelegislative action that may alter such acts. Further, nothing in prevailing District law would either restrain or prevent the Council from taking legislative action that could affect any aspect of public education.

Lastly, it is important to recognize that from a legislative perspective, should the executivebranch have an interest in additional statutory changes, such proposed changes would have to bemoved by a member of the Council, traditionally the Chairman, and would be subject toestablished legislative procedures, which would require the following:

• The actual introduction of the bill;• The referral of the legislation to the appropriate committee;

• A formal public hearing;• A scheduled committee mark-up and vote; and• The measure being agendized for first and second reading before the full Council.

Overall, while lawmaking is defined as the express power of the legislative branch of government, this entity, generally, attempts to exercise its powers consistent with the intent of approved acts. The Council will have to determine collectively and individually, the extent towhich it will legislate in key policy areas, beyond the recommendations that may be transmittedto it by the Mayor. Several possible policy priority areas are described below.



50

Career and Technical Education, Post-Secondary Education, & Workforce Development

Since 2000, the District of Columbia has added more than 270,000 new jobs, resultant from asignificant economic revitalization in the region.62 However, since the majority of theseopportunities require at least some post-secondary education, many residents of the District of

Columbia are unable to compete for these jobs: an estimated 29% of District residents enroll ininstitutions of post-secondary education, and only 9% graduate within five years of enrolling.63 Nevertheless, accessing and achieving a post-secondary education may not be sufficient toaddress the needs of the labor market; there should also be a focus on dropout prevention andrecovery methods to maximize the number of residents who can benefit from post-secondaryeducation.

Alongside the OSSE, the Council can help increase the number of students who graduate frompost-secondary education and assist in the development of a career and technical educationprogram that ensures students are prepared for careers in the District’s economy. The PhelpsArchitecture, Construction, and Engineering High School will be one example upon its

completion. The Chancellor has articulated hopes to open several other “career academies”designed to prepare students for career paths. The development of these schools may requireCouncil approval if they call for new construction, public-private development partnerships, or large contracts with outside entities. The Council may also sponsor enhanced job training andapprenticeship opportunities, and youth employment initiatives, in addition to programmaticdevelopments through the University of the District of Columbia, to meet similar goals.

Notably, the Council appropriated $100,000 in Fiscal Year 2007 for the Department of Employment Services to craft a strategic plan for workforce development. The WorkforceInvestment Council was subcontracted to develop the Workforce Development Strategic Plan.This entity was charged with assessing workforce development programs, developing acomprehensive design of a workforce development system, and a strategic plan for implementation of workforce development.64 This plan will be crucial to formulating additionalworkforce development programs.

Since our education system is playing an increasingly important role in the preparation of workers and, consequently, the development of the District’s economy, it is important that theCouncil help encourage workforce development for all members of the District of Columbia tomaximize our investment in public education.

62 Greater Washington Initiative, “Greater Washington 2006 Regional Report,”

http://www.greaterwashington.org/pdf/RR_2006.pdf, Accessed 1 October 2007. 63 Adam Kernan-Schloss and Bill Potapchuk, 2006, “Double the Numbers for College Success, A Call to Action for

the District of Columbia,” http://seo.dc.gov/seo/frames.asp?doc=/seo/lib/seo/news_room/2006/

DoublingNumber_FINAL.pdf, Accessed 1 October 2007. 64 Council of the District of Columbia. DC Act. 16-0476, Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Support Act of 2006. http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/images/00001/20060727152635.pdf, Accessed 19 November 2007.



51

Community Schools

The Master Education Plan listed the implementation of full-service “community schools”providing an “integrated focus on academics, health and social services, youth and communitydevelopment and community engagement [which] leads to improved student learning, stronger

families and healthier communities”

65

at neighborhood schools as one of its key strategies for improving student achievement. The District of Columbia would be adhering to a growingnational trend of using schools as centers of the community. Evaluations indicate communityschools have proven to be highly successful in mitigating in- and out-of-school factors (e.g.nutrition, socioeconomic factors, etc.) that hinder students and families not traditionallyaddressed within the classroom.66 Moreover, the Interagency Collaboration and IntegratedServices Commission exists to “facilitate a more focused, comprehensive approach to improvingchild and youth outcomes in the District through increased interagency collaboration and cross-agency accountability.”67 While this may include the provision of additional wraparoundservices, many states and localities have been successful in leveraging existing federal and localfunding to eliminate firewalls to provide social services to disadvantaged families. Moreover,

interagency collaboration may be facilitated by the initiatives of the Council’s Committee onHuman Services and the provision of person-centered, integrated case management. Theprogressive and innovative goals of community schools and true interagency collaboration andintegration may be promoted through legislative action.

Discipline and School Culture

Many teachers and students in the District of Columbia Public Schools are concerned aboutdisorder in our schools and its effect on the instructional program. In April 2007, the Councilapproved legislation that would have required the Board of Education to establish a disciplinesystem that promoted in-school education (i.e. in-school suspension) in an effort to reduce classexclusion and out-of-school suspension in the “Class Exclusion Standards TemporaryAmendment Act of 2007.” As there is a growing body of research showing an associationbetween out-of-school suspension and further poor outcomes such as delinquency, substanceabuse, and school drop outs, the Council may wish to revisit school discipline standards andmandate that a progressive, supportive discipline system operate in every school within theDistrict of Columbia. The President of the Washington Teachers’ Union, has also expressedinterest in a District-wide discipline policy.68 Addressing discipline would have a salutary effecton student achievement and the retention of high-quality teachers.

65 Coalition of Community Schools. “Community Schools: Partnerships for Excellence,”

http://www.communityschools.org/CCSDocuments/partnershipsforexcellence.pdf, Accessed 27 September 200766 Ibid.67 “Interagency Collaboration and Integrated Services Commission,” District of Columbia Mayor’s Office,

http://www.dc.gov/mayor/pdf/showpdf.asp?pdfName=Interagency_Commission_Overview_final.pdf, Accessed 27

September 200768 George Parker, President of the Washington Teachers’ Union, personal communication to the author, 27 March2007.



52

Literacy & Adult and Family Education

Early in 2007, the State Education Agency at the University of the District of Columbia releaseda report that found that about 36% of the people over 16 years of age living in the District of Columbia are functionally illiterate as compared to 21% nationwide.

69Functional literacy can be

defined as being able to perform all of the reading, writing, and computing (math) necessary tocarry out everyday tasks. Functionally illiterate individuals typically have difficulty completingtasks such as reading bus schedules, maps, using ATMs, and filling out job applications. Earlyliteracy also has a significant impact on academic success over time while family literacy hasimpacts for the adult learner as well as the educational environment for children. Improvementsin adult literacy, such as acquiring a high school equivalency credential (i.e. GED) enhance theoverall quality of life for the individual, the family, and the community. The recommendations of the Mayor’s Adult Literacy Council will be released soon. The Council may need to advancepolicy to sustain a system of adult literacy that is responsive to the needs of residents of theDistrict of Columbia.

Nonetheless, addressing literacy is a complex problem. The typical illiterate adult is AfricanAmerican or Hispanic, is likely to have an income close to the poverty level, be older than 25years old with less than a high school diploma, and live in rental or subsidized housing.Likewise, their children are likely to attend low-performing public schools and qualify for free or reduced price lunch.70 Legislative action may involve a constructive and comprehensiverecommendation combining or integrating education and human services. Effective casemanagement along with wraparound services and adult and family education policies mayameliorate functional illiteracy in the District of Columbia. Since strategies may emanate fromseveral Council committees, a coordinated effort may be required.

Nutrition, Physical Education, and Recess

Childhood obesity is a persistent problem in the District of Columbia, reaching almostepidemic proportions. Addressing obesity will require coordination of health, education, andhuman services in order to remedy this outstanding public health issue. Since PERAA permitsthe Council a greater role in education, similarly the Council can address nutrition and accessto physical education and recess. According to the Trust for American’s Health, the District of Columbia has the 40

thhighest rate of adult obesity at 22.2% and the highest rate of overweight

youths (ages 10-17) in the nation at 22.8%.71 Moreover, 22.3% of adults in the District, and22% nationally, report that they do not engage in any physical activity. In addition, unlike themajority of states, the District does not require their school lunches, breakfasts, and snacks tomeet higher nutritional standards than the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In their inauguralmeeting, the State Board of Education also recognized childhood obesity as a major problem in

69 David Mack, Keith Watson, and Stacey Downey, “State of Adult Literacy Report,” 2007,

http://literacydc.org/documents/report.pdf, Accessed 1 October 2007.70 Keith Watson, “Technical Appendix for the District of Columbia State of Adult Literacy Report,” 2007,

http://literacydc.org/documents/techpaper.pdf, Accessed 1 October 2007.71 Laura Segal, “Washington, DC Adults 40th Most Obese in Country; Youth 1st Most Overweight,” 2007, Trust for

America’s Health, http://healthyamericans.org/reports/obesity2007/release.php?StateID=DC, Accessed 1 October 2007.



53

the District and expressed an interest in increasing physical activity opportunities to reduce theproblem.

The Council may wish to collaborate with the State Board of Education in addressingchildhood nutrition and obesity while, as a matter of public health, authorizing legislation that

routinely measures students' body mass index (BMI) or fitness status alongside educationalmaterials for children and parents or guardians.

Meanwhile, according to the spokesperson for the Chancellor, there are no set requirements or standards for recess and no specific monies set aside to improve the quality of recess atDCPS.72 However, four DCPS elementary schools, Brookland, Clark, Montgomery, andBunker Hill have an arrangement with the Sports4Kids program, which provides participatingschools with $22,000 apiece and one full-time recess coordinator. It would be advisable toevaluate this program while legislative remedies are considered.

Nutrition is another policy area that may require legislative action. Historically, nutrition

standards for school meal programs have focused on food adequacy and the prevention of undernourishment. However, current data show that a large percentage of the student populationwho qualifies and receives free or reduced lunches through the federal National School Lunchprogram are considered “at risk” for developing diet related diseases caused by an over-consumption of fats, cholesterol and sodium. These diseases include obesity, cancer, heartdisease, and diabetes. While school children may be receiving some nutrients, many studiesdemonstrate that the vast majority of these children are not getting their recommended servingsof fruits, vegetables, legumes, and whole grains.73 Currently, DCPS has a contract with PreferredMeals, Inc. for $3.4 million to provide pre-plated breakfast and lunch meals at elementary andmiddle schools sites to support the DCPS National School Breakfast and Lunch Programs fromAugust 21, 2007 to November 17, 2007. The total two-year contract is valued at over $21.03

million. Since a new food service contract should be coming for Council approval soon, theCouncil may wish to evaluate food options available for students and support healthyalternatives.

One alternative form of providing food service derives from Robert Egger, President of the DCCentral Kitchen and Chair of the Mayor’s Commission on Food and Nutrition. He has suggestedthat the District of Columbia review the implementation of an innovative approach to foodservice delivery in Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS). The MCPS Division of Foodand Nutrition Service utilizes a “Central Production Facility” (CPF) that produces food itemsdaily for consumption.74 According to MCPS, the CPF allows the school system to offer agreater variety of healthy and creative meals to students in a more cost-efficient and controlled

72 Dena Levitz, “Report: Schools not devoting energy, money to recess,” The Examiner ,

http://www.examiner.com/a-953725~Report__Schools_not_devoting_energy__money_to_recess.html, Accessed 1

October 2007.73

District of Columbia State Education Office, “School Meals Initiative (SMI) Final Report for DC Public

Schools,” 2003, http://educationcenter.dc.gov/ec/lib/ec/SMI_Final_Report.pdf, Accessed 1 October 2007. 74 See Division of Food and Nutrition Services at Montgomery County Public Schools,http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/departments/foodserv, Accessed 26 September 2007.



54

manner. MCPS also manages a food service warehouse that contains the inventory of productsneeded to prepare school meals.

On August 7, 2007, the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) released a report on the DCPSuniversal school breakfast program and found that despite offering a free, universal breakfast for

all students, less than half (47%) of eligible low-income District of Columbia studentsparticipated in the School Breakfast Program during the 2005-2006 school year.75 Alternativestrategies that make breakfast a part of the school day have been effective in reaching children.Some of these strategies include serving breakfast in the classroom or by using “grab and go”carts in the hallway to allow students to bring food into the classroom. Nonetheless, this lowparticipation also means that District schools are missing out on additional federal funding: aschool loses $1.27 in federal nutrition funding for every child who would have received a freebreakfast every day and $0.97 for every low-income child who would have received a reduced-price breakfast. FRAC estimated that if the District were able to reach 70 low-income childrenwith breakfast for every 100 that received free and reduced-price lunch, more than 5,740additional students would have started the day with breakfast and the District would have

accessed an additional $1.29 million in federal child nutrition funding, not including thedividends from higher student achievement.

Open and Closed School Records, Transcripts, & Diplomas

The Board of Education, prior to PERAA, had determined that thousands of student records werebeing maintained in deplorable conditions throughout the school system. Since regulationswithin Title V of the DCMR obligated DCPS to maintain student records for 75 years, openschools retain their records on-site while closed school records are sent to a DCPS warehouse.The Board of Education’s investigation determined that requests for records were not being metin a timely manner and that the state of the records was unacceptable, especially since lacking a

copy of a high school transcript or diploma may obstruct graduates from admission touniversities, employment, retirement benefits, and delayed processing of visas for travelers.Likewise, it may be prudent to direct the Chancellor to develop and propose a long-term solutionfor upgrading the storage and retrieval process for both open and closed schools records.

Parental Involvement & Parent Resource Centers

Studies show that when parents are involved in their children’s education, their children do better in school. Students whose parents are involved also are less likely to require special education,drop out of school, be arrested, or require public assistance. Therefore, investments in parentalinvolvement can have significant outcomes. According to the Master Education Plan, severalcities have created programs to support parental involvement. For example, New York City has apaid parent coordinator in every school. Boston has revamped and upgraded their parentalinvolvement program also. In addition, the Miami-Dade and San Diego school districts haveestablished parent academies to help train parents in a wide range of areas, from parenting skills

75 “School Breakfast in America’s Big Cities,” 2007, Food Research and Action Center,http://www.frac.org/pdf/urbanbreakfast07.pdf, Accessed 1 October 2007.



55

to advocacy.76 In 2007, the former Board of Education funded the establishment of “parentresource centers” in Wards 1, 7, and 8. These parent resource centers would “bring together theservices families need to ensure that their children are ready to learn and the family is able tosupport that learning” and are envisioned as “one-stop centers for providing services and/or referrals to outside services that will reduce barriers to parents’ ability to help their children

succeed.”

77

While the State Board of Education is tasked with the approval of state policies for parentalinvolvement from the OSSE, the Council can augment parental involvement through programsthat encourage this beneficial activity. Since PERAA, the Council is in a position to developcomprehensive policies that ensure that parent resource centers are a component of a broader vision of wraparound and integrated services and a step towards the creation of communityschools within the District of Columbia.

Pay-for-Performance

While it remains a controversial subject, the past several years have seen many innovations in thearea of pay-for-performance for teachers. Most recently, on October 17, 2007, New York Cityannounced their intentions of implementing a merit pay plan for teachers.78 However, there aremany different forms of pay-for-performance. The following compose four alternative teacher compensation systems:

• Merit pay: Individual teachers receive bonuses based on improvements in their performance.

• Knowledge- and skills-based pay: Teachers earn permanent increases for acquiring newskills and applying those skills.

• Performance pay: Teachers earn increases tied to improvements in students'performance measured by standardized tests or other criteria.

• School-based performance pay: All professional staff in a school earn a bonus if students meet particular goals.79

According to Rob Weil of the American Federation of Teachers (of which the WashingtonTeachers’ Union is a local affiliate), the union is not opposed to a well-conceived pay-for-performance system, but it must meet certain conditions.80 The Council may wish to drivelegislative action to reform the teachers’ pay system in the District of Columbia.

76 District of Columbia Public Schools, 2006, “Master Education Plan,”

http://www.k12.dc.us/master/MEP_final.pdf, Accessed 24 September 2007.77 Ibid.78 Elissa Gootman, “Teachers Agree to Bonus Pay Tied to Scores,” New York Times, 18 October 2007,http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/education/18schools.html?_r=1&ref=education&oref=slogin, Accessed 18

October 2007.79 Ellen R. Delisio. “Pay for Performance: What Are the Issues?” Education World , http://www.education-

world.com/a_issues/issues/issues374a.shtml, Accessed 2 October 2007.80 Ibid.



56

Pre-Kindergarten & Early Childhood Education

According to scientific research, an early childhood education provides a foundation for academic success, especially for children most at-risk of school failure. These programs helpensure “school readiness” and build momentum towards continued student achievement. On

December 11, 2007, the “Pre-K for All DC Amendment Act of 2007” was introduced before theCouncil. This bill would establish a universal, voluntary high quality pre-kindergarten program.81 High-quality early childhood programs have also been shown to produce broad, long-termsocietal benefits, including increased employment and associated tax revenue, reduced crime,and reduced dependency on social welfare systems.82 Traditionally, early childhood educationhas been managed by the Early Care and Education Administration (ECEA) within theDepartment of Human Services and DCPS. The OSSE is already tasked with ensuringcoordination of policies and services between the previously separate child care and earlyeducation systems. The Council may design further legislation to provide universal pre-kindergarten and accessible early childhood education.

School Autonomy

Before PERAA, a number of schools have been interested in achieving local school autonomy(e.g., Wilson Senior High School) which would allow schools to apply for and receive varyinglevels of autonomy over budget, personnel, procurement, programs, professional development,and facilities. The Council may elect to have a role in the development of protocols to supportflexibility and autonomy for higher-performing schools if that is the Council’s prerogative. Insome of the pilot schools prescribed in the Washington Teachers’ Union’s contract, the schoolswill attempt to use increased school autonomy to experiment with new approaches to providingdevelopmentally appropriate, high-quality instruction. The Council needs to be aware of thedebate surrounding school autonomy.

School Improvement & Accountability

“School improvement” was the primary motivation for supporting a governance change in publiceducation. The District of Columbia Public Schools, interagency Commission, Ombudsman, andOPEFM, along with the state functions in the OSSE are all concerned with improving studentachievement. Therefore, the Council continues to have many options in how to exert influenceand provide oversight of school reform, school improvement, and accountability. Nonetheless,there is a critical need for Councilmembers to exert influence and oversight over schoolimprovement, especially since school improvement is a complex concept.

Improvement and reform models differ in their educational philosophies and prescribed practicesin key areas such as curriculum, methods of teaching, forms of governance, and parental

81 Council of the District of Columbia. B17-0537 , “Pre-K for All DC Amendment Act of 2007,”http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/images/00001/20071213154826.pdf, Accessed 18 December 2007.82 Office of the State Superintendent of Education. “Building a Model State Education Agency for the People of the

District of Columbia,” http://newsroom.dc.gov/show.aspx?agency=seo&section=2&release=11523&year

=2007&file=file.aspx%2frelease%2f11523%2fFinal%2520OSSE%2520Transtion%2520Plan%25209%252010%252007%2520word.pdf, Accessed 1 October 2007.



57

involvement. However, while they are often initiated in different ways, most reform modelsshare some common ground. School reform models are meant to improve education, and often,they attempt to do this by stepping away from the traditional ways of thinking about schoolorganization and decision-making, staffing, teaching, curriculum, student services, andrelationships with parents, business, and the community. School reform models tend to target

schools that serve disadvantaged students, though this is not always the case.

83

Nevertheless,many improvement schemes continue to be debated and research results have been mixed. Somestudies find modest improvements in student achievement; others find no effect. A major shortcoming of many studies is that they fail to account for the extent to which schools haveactually implemented their chosen model.84 The responsibility of the Council will be to ensureevidence-based reform measures are being undertaken within the school system.

Where there are similarities, there are also major differences among school reform models.School improvement and reform may be student-centered, teacher-focused, school-centered, or district-centered. For example, some models are appropriate for a specific type or size of schoolor for certain grade levels, while others can be applied to any school of any size in any location.

Some models focus on reforming a particular aspect of the school, such as curriculum. Otherscall for a wholesale rethinking of a school's organization and operation.

Moreover, many school reform models evolve over time, as developers learn from experience,address a fluid education landscape, and respond to the changing needs of students andcommunities. Some models may start out by reforming a particular aspect of the school, such asthe reading curriculum, and then evolve into whole-school reform. Others might initially developprinciples around whole-school reform to which a school must adhere and then later developspecific strategies or curricula to realize those principles.

Among reform models that might be labeled “whole-school,” some have a rigid structure and

prescribe the curricula, materials, and instructional strategies to be used, while others do notprescribe any of the above but rather have a philosophy of school change which school staffsadopt and apply based on their local situations and needs. These iterations and the variety of evolutionary paths school reform models have taken make categorizing them challenging.

With the passage of No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2001, the federal government revisedthe existing federal accountability framework. State and district leaders, many of whom havelong been concerned about student achievement, now have additional impetus to attempt moredrastic reforms. In particular, schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) in thepercentage of children meeting grade level standards for five consecutive years must engage inrestructuring to improve student learning. Currently, 75% of the District’s schools are either inneed of improvement or in the planning stage for restructuring based on the AYP determination

83 Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Catalog of School Reform Models,

http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/catalog/about/modeltypes.shtml, Accessed 10 October 2007.84 Georges Vernez, Rita Karam, Louis T. Mariano, Christine DeMartini, 2006, Evaluating Comprehensive School

Reform Models at Scale, RAND, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG546.pdf, Accessed 10October 2007.



58

phases under the NCLB.85 In the District of Columbia, the OSSE will hold the multiple localeducation agencies (LEAs), e.g. DCPS and the charter schools, accountable for studentachievement based on federal requirements and national trends. The State Board of Educationapproves the “state accountability plan” which specifies how schools may receive rewards,sanctions, assistance, or a combination of these actions based on defined benchmarks. The OSSE

will also monitor the effectiveness of state-assistance to schools through a variety of methods asdictated by the state accountability plan. The “state accountability plan” is composed of a singlestatewide accountability system that ensures all local education agencies make AYP and is basedon academic standards, academic assessments, a standardized system of accountability across alllocal education agencies, and a system of sanctions and rewards that will be used to hold localeducation agencies accountable for student achievement. Lastly, education leaders may makeefforts to improve the classroom experience by increasing teacher quality and ensuring equitabledistribution of quality teachers across schools and districts.

Under NCLB, states are ultimately responsible for the success of their systems of publiceducation. The OSSE will be required to support LEAs to achieve uniformly high-quality public

education. Along with the accountability provisions of NCLB, the OSSE will also be required toprovide support when LEAs fail to meet critical performance objectives. This role will increasein significance as schools fail to meet critical AYP targets and face requirements for correctiveaction and restructuring. There is also a greater focus on analysis of school and student-level dataand reporting to identify and address “achievement gaps” among groups of students based oneconomic status, ethnicity, disability, and English proficiency; and to inform parents and thecommunity about school performance.

By September 30 of each year, the Mayor will submit to the Council an annual evaluation of District of Columbia Public Schools that will includes an assessment of student achievement,likely in accordance with the state accountability plan.

The Council must work in concert with the Deputy Mayor for Education and StateSuperintendent of Education to promote school improvement and accountability especially whenlegislative remedies are necessary. The Council may also wish to create programs that supportschool improvement. Lastly, the Council may wish to authorize a needs assessment administeredto principals, teachers, students, and parents to evaluate program needs that would requirelegislative action. The Board of Education sought to begin this research prior to the mayoraltakeover in order to address discipline in DCPS. As many teachers and students in DCPS areconcerned about disorder in our schools and its effect on the instructional program, the Councilmay encourage the Mayor to enforce a district-wide discipline plan since it would encouragestudent achievement.

School improvement and accountability remain nebulous territory for the Council. Nonetheless,many of the programs that the Council may create will be ancillary to the federal requirementsfor school improvement that will be ongoing through the OSSE.

85 Office of the State Superintendent of Education. “Building a Model State Education Agency for the People of the

District of Columbia,” http://newsroom.dc.gov/show.aspx?agency=seo&section=2&release=11523&year=

2007&file=file.aspx%2frelease%2f11523%2fFinal%2520OSSE%2520Transtion%2520Plan%25209%252010%252007%2520word.pdf, Accessed 1 October 2007.



59

Student Registration, Special Programs, Out-of-Boundary Registration, Scheduling, Enrollment,

& Immunization

Student enrollment, specifically, the projection of student enrollment for the ensuing school year,

has proven to be a controversial topic in the budgeting process for DCPS. However, the studentregistration process has also received recent scrutiny. For early childhood education andspecialty programs, there is no uniform admissions process; many parents are concerned aboutselection policies because of their lack of transparency. The out-of-boundary registration processhas also been criticized for not clearly informing parents of its process and how placement isdetermined. Likewise, DCPS has a consistent history of not providing secondary students withclass schedules in a timely manner. These critical enrollment systems may require oversight todetermine the systems that coalesce for a student to become enrolled in DCPS.

The District of Columbia already establishes mandatory immunization requirements. A publichealth opportunity exists where students can be screened for elevated levels of lead, obesity,

juvenile diabetes, or other special needs along with receiving their immunizations. This may beaddressed by the Council in a way that meets the goals and objectives of the District of Columbia.

Teacher Retention & Teacher Quality

Teacher quality is often recognized as the most powerful school-based factor in student learningand the advancement of student achievement. However, research shows that while teacher experience is highly correlated to students’ academic success, nearly one in five new teachers(20%) leave the profession in their first three years; more than 30% leave within five years. Inaddition, the transfer of teachers to other schools (within the District, to charter schools, or tosurrounding school districts) also adds intense pressure on teacher quality in the District of Columbia.86

The exit of teachers from the profession and the movement of teachers to better schools is acostly phenomena, both for the students, who lose the value of being taught by an experiencedteacher, and to the schools and districts, which must recruit and train their replacements. Amongteachers who transferred schools or left the profession entirely, lack of planning time (65%), tooheavy a workload (60%), problematic student behavior (53%), and a lack of influence over school policy (52%) were cited as common sources of dissatisfaction.87

Moreover, there is not only a loss of experience, but a cost factor associated with teacher turnover. In 2003, according to the Alliance for Excellent Education, the cost related to teacherswho leave the profession in the District of Columbia was $6,017,796 and the cost related toteachers who transfer to other schools was $6,871,872. This combined for a total teacher

86 Alliance for Excellent Education, 2005, Teacher Attrition: A Costly Loss to the Nation and to the States,

http://www.all4ed.org/files/archive/publications/TeacherAttrition.pdf, Accessed 14 October 2007.87 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Teacher Follow-up Survey(“Questionnaire for Current Teachers” and “Questionnaire for Former Teachers”), 2000–01, Table 6.



60

turnover cost, not including retirements, of $12,889,668 in the District of Columbia.88

Consequently, the District of Columbia Public Schools is not meeting federal requirements of having highly qualified teachers in every classroom. Of the 6482 employed educators reportedby the District’s LEAs, approximately 46.2% (2993) possessed the appropriate state license for

all of their assignments while 3.0% (195) possessed the appropriate license for at least one butnot all assignments. Approximately 50.8% (3294) did not possess the appropriate state licensefor any of their assignments.89

The District must comprehensively review teacher placements and qualifications to ensure thatevery child is instructed by a highly qualified teacher, as mandated by NCLB. Upon determiningthe number of classrooms that do not meet this criteria, a strategic plan for meeting thisrequirement must be developed with a time certain date for meeting the established goal. TheDistrict should establish this as a top priority. It is a serious disservice, to our students, to placethem in classes where they cannot receive appropriate instruction from qualified teachers.

While the Council will not be directly involved in creating standards or licensing teachers, theCouncil may choose to partner with the OSSE to provide incentives or programs that supporthigh quality teachers in the classroom. Likewise, the process and timeline of hiring teachers hasbeen notably deficient. The Council may wish to pursue oversight of the DCPS Office of HumanServices to ensure that highly qualified teachers are hired in a timely manner.

Other

There are a multitude of other issues in public education that the Council may wish to explore.Some of these include the state-wide longitudinal data warehouse, addressing English LanguageLearners, higher education, mentoring programs, principal accountability, funding for specialsubjects (i.e. music, art, and computer specials), and youth engagement and development.

The opportunities for Council involvement in public education are numerous. Below is aconsolidated list of possible policy priorities. They can be grouped into three themes: Oversightand Budget, Interagency Collaboration and Integrated Services, and School Improvement.

Oversight and BudgetInteragency Collaboration &

Integrated ServicesSchool Improvement

Budgeting, the Universal Per-

Student Funding Formula & the

Weighted Student Formula

At-Risk Children and Families English Language Learners

Department of Education / Deputy

Mayor for Education

Career and Technical Education,

Post-Secondary Education, &

Workforce Development

Higher Education

88 Alliance for Excellent Education. “Teacher Attrition: A Costly Loss to the Nation and to the States,” 2005,

http://www.all4ed.org/files/archive/publications/TeacherAttrition.pdf, Accessed 14 October 2007.89 Kenneth Bungert. “State Employed Educator Report: 2005-2006 Academic Year,” 11 June 2007.



61

Oversight and BudgetInteragency Collaboration &

Integrated ServicesSchool Improvement


/ Chancellor Community Schools

Open and Closed School Records,

Transcripts, & Diplomas

Education Rules and Regulations Discipline Pay-for-Performance

Facilities Maintenance and

Modernization, Leasing of Buildings and Grounds, Co-

Location, & Closing of PublicSchools

Integrated Case Management Principal Accountability

Federal GrantsLiteracy & Adult and Family

EducationTitle I Interventions

Office of Public Education

Facilities Modernization /

Executive Director Medicaid Recovery School Autonomy

Office of Ombudsman for Public

Education / OmbudsmanMentoring Programs

School Improvement &

Accountability

Office of the State Superintendent

of Education / State Superintendent

Nutrition, Physical Education, and

Recess Special Subjects

PersonnelParental involvement & Parent

Resource Centers

Student Registration, Special

Programs, Out-of-BoundaryRegistration, Scheduling,

Enrollment, & Immunization

ProcurementPre-Kindergarten & Early

Childhood Education

Teacher Retention & Teacher

Quality

Public/Private Development

Projects

Youth Engagement and

DevelopmentVouchers & Charter Schools

Special Education


State-Wide Longitudinal Data

Warehouse

Table 6: A Survey of Possible Policy Areas (Alphabetized)

Conclusion

The role of the Council of the District of Columbia dramatically changed on June 12, 2007 withthe enactment of the “Public Education Reform Amendment Act of 2007” (PERAA). PERAAushered in a new era of public education reform in the District of Columbia, which willhopefully lead to increased student achievement and better outcomes for children, adults, andfamilies. In addition, PERAA substantially altered the educational paradigm in the District of Columbia and redistributed powers and authority regarding education. With this change ingovernance many opportunities will emerge for the Council to assist in promoting student

achievement.

The legislation enacted by the Council also established the District of Columbia Public Schoolsas a cabinet-level, subordinate agency under the Mayor, established a Department of Education,headed by a Deputy Mayor for Education, the Office of the State Superintendent of Educationthe Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization, and the Office of the Ombudsman for Public Education, along with the Interagency Collaboration and Services IntegrationCommission.



62

Inherent in the creation of these new agencies and offices is that the opportunities for oversighthave increased. Nonetheless, the Council, collectively and individually, will need to determinethe level of deference it gives the Mayor; the relationship between the executive and legislativebranches will certainly evolve as reform efforts continue. In addition, it may be necessary for the

Council to review its capacity to handle these additional oversight responsibilities. This isespecially true since mayoral control has yet to be proven as effective reform; not enough timehas passed and not enough data have been collected to make a definitive statement on the gainsachieved from a mayoral takeover. Hence, it is incumbent upon the Council to exert oversight tomonitor, and if necessary provide solutions that would overcome obstacles to success.

Historically, while the Council of the District of Columbia exercised oversight over the Districtof Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) system, it was not the central policymaking entity oneducation matters. This role was traditionally maintained by the District of Columbia Board of Education, pursuant to Title 38 of the D.C. Official Code. With the Board of Education elevatedto the state level, a review of PERAA reveals that the Council’s oversight role has expanded

dramatically, as has its ability to control policy priorities through budget modifications andexpanded legislative power. These powers permit the Council to take a more proactive leadershiprole in advocating for improved student achievement and better outcomes for children, adults,and families.

In the upcoming months and years, the Council will receive many plans, reports, evaluations, andother documents pertaining to institutionalizing education reform. Their findings will form thefoundation of effective oversight, but other reports may be required. For example, areformulation of the Master Education Plan or a description of specific school improvementinitiatives to be implemented within DCPS has not been shared with the Council. There are manyways the Council can approach education reform. Information sharing is critical and the Councilshould continue to build relationships with the executive on education matters.

In a comparison with other mayoral takeovers, the District of Columbia varies substantially fromBoston, Chicago, and New York. For example, the Boston, Chicago, and New York schooldistricts, along with most other school districts nationwide, are monitored by a state educationagency, a separate state-level entity. The geopolitical arrangement of the District of Columbiaspurred a unique development where both the state and local education agencies are under asingle authority: the Mayor. Therefore, how the executive resolves conflicts between educationagencies remains unclear.

In addition, community input, and to a lesser extent, the idea of participatory governance, is avalued commodity and has played a substantial role in education reform in the District of Columbia. Nonetheless, the forms of community input are limited by PERAA. Currently, onlythree formal methods of community input exist: through the State Board of Education, theCouncil, and the Ombudsman. However, these entities all provide entry points on specific topicsand not for general inquiry and comment on overall education reform. Consequently, the Councilwill need to decide how community input is received and utilized in decision-making. There aremultiple opportunities for collective and individual Councilmember activity in the creation of input mechanisms.



63

The Council has also gained new authority over the DCPS budget. Upon submission of the FY2009 budget, the Council will have the ability to reallocate funds on a program level, whichpermits assessment of mayoral priorities and reprioritization if deemed appropriate. Thissignificant power places the Council in a strong position to support (or hinder) the Mayor’s

attempts for improvement of the District’s education system. Ultimately, PERAA did notstreamline the budget process to any measurable degree, reduce layers of budget approval or interference, or make it easier to align instructional goals with financial resources. On thecontrary, it may cost the city substantially more money just to transfer powers and authority andimplement reform.

Beyond oversight and addressing the budget, the Council has the ability to proactively remedylong-standing issues and create remedies that are otherwise not addressed or not addressed to thesatisfaction of the Council. There are numerous policy areas in which the Council may wish toengage itself. These policy areas may include: career and technical education, communityschools, discipline, literacy, adult education, nutrition, parental involvement, universal pre-

kindergarten, school improvement, among many others. Due to the unique geopolitical structureof the District of Columbia, whereas the District functions as both a city and a state, PERAAprovides a tremendous opportunity for the Council to pursue progressive and proactive educationreform. The Office of Policy Analysis recommends construction of a timeline and anoverarching, comprehensive agenda that permits the Council to be strategic in the initiatives andoversight it brings forth.

However, the Council’s expanded role is fraught with political minefields. Any questioning of the progress or policies resultant from the Mayor’s new powers may be viewed as obstructionistor of sustaining the “status quo” towards improving student achievement; Council actions maybe characterized by thoughts of political gain. Nonetheless, by utilizing best practices, expertwitnesses, and disciplined action, political pressure may be assuaged. It is vital, irrespective of political pressure, that the Council become a proactive oversight body. Given the changeseffectuated by PERAA, the Council remains the only legislative body impacting educationpolicy in the District of Columbia.

Finally, the Office of Policy Analysis recommends that the Council create and adopt a coherent,comprehensive oversight agenda to address legislative priorities. An agenda organized by policytheme would enhance the Council’s ability to be proactive in education reform within the Districtof Columbia. This would greatly facilitate the Council’s role in influencing education reform.

Likewise, the Office of Policy Analysis is prepared to provide comprehensive, nonpartisan, andobjective research and analysis on the policy issues presented above. The Office of PolicyAnalysis will work with the Committee of the Whole, as well as each Council member, their staff, and each committee to assist in the refinement of an over-arching strategy for providingeffective oversight of public education in the District of Columbia.



64

Appendix

Oversight Objectives and Setting Policy Priorities

The role of oversight rests on the Council of the District of Columbia. Under the historical

conditions in which PERAA was enacted, it is reasonable to suggest that the goals of PERAA areto improve student achievement and produce positive outcomes for the residents of the Districtof Columbia. Therefore, it may be necessary to categorize the elements of school reform into acoherent and comprehensive agenda for pursuing oversight with the relevant policy goals inmind.

There are several options for designing a comprehensive oversight strategy. The two presentedhere are by agency and by policy area. Of note, due to the unique geopolitical arrangement of theDistrict of Columbia, some policy themes fit into multiple areas. From these diagrams, over-arching, comprehensive timelines can be logically constructed to include the highlighted policyareas.

The former can be represented within the context of the current governance structure:

Oversight over Public Education by theCouncil of the District of Columbia



(Deputy Mayor for Education)


(Chancellor)

Office of the Ombudsman for Public

Education

Office of Public Education Facilities

Modernization (Executive Director)

Interagency Collaboration andIntegrated Services Commission



Figure 6: Modified Public Education Governance Structure after PERAA 2007



65

Oversight over Public Education by the



• Education Rules and Regulations

• Budget Submission

Department of Education(Deputy Mayor of Education) District of Columbia Public Schools(Chancellor)

Office of the State Superintendent for Education

(State Superintendent)

• Federal Grants• Literacy & Adult and Family Education

• Parental involvement

• School Improvement & Accountability

• Special Education

• State Board of Education

• State-Wide Longitudinal Data Warehouse

• Teacher Quality• Universal Per-Student Funding Formula

• Vouchers & Charter Schools

Office of the Ombudsman for Public Education

(Ombudsman)

• Outreach & Communication

• Process for Resolving Issues

• Reporting and Policy Suggestions

Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization

(Executive Director)

• Facilities Maintenance and Modernization

• Leasing of Buildings and Grounds

• Co-Location

• Closing of Public Schools

• Procurement

• Public/Private Development Projects

Interagency Collaboration and Integrated Services

Commission (Deputy Mayor of Education)

• At-Risk Children and Families

• Community Schools

• Integrated Case Management

• Mentoring Programs

• Post-Secondary Education

• Pre-Kindergarten and Early Childhood

Education• Workforce Development

• Youth Engagement and Development


(Chancellor)

• Pre-K-12 Education

• Career and Technical Education

• English Language Learners

• Medicaid Recovery

• Nutrition, Physical Education, Recess

• Open and Closed School Records

• Parent Resource Centers• Pay-for-Performance

• Personnel

• Principal Accountability

• Procurement

• Registration and Scheduling

• School Autonomy

• School Improvement & Accountability

• Special Education

• Special Subjects

• Teacher Quality

• Title I Interventions• Universal Pre-Kindergarten

• Weighted Student Formula

Figure 7: An Agency Approach to Oversight



66

FacilitiesMaintenance

andModernization

SchoolImprovement

& SchoolAccountability

Vouchers andSchool Choice

/ Charter Schools

InteragencyCollaborationand Integrated

Services DCPS Budget

andOperations

Post-SecondaryEducation &Career andTechnical

Education

Literacy &Adult and

FamilyEducation

SpecialEducation

Pre-K to 12th

Grade

Education &School

Improvement

Early

ChildhoodEducation

ImprovingStudent

Achievement& Outcomesfor Residents

Figure 8: A Thematic Approach to Oversight



67

The timeline below is an illustration of the comprehensive oversight strategies detailed earlier.One of the timelines is organized by public education agency; the second timeline is organizedby policy theme. The benefit of the former is that executive agencies may make fewer appearances with discussion surrounding a greater breadth of issues. However, one disadvantageis that policy areas usually do not fall into discreet agencies, as signified by creation of the

Interagency Collaboration and Integrated Services Commission.

The cities of New York City and Chicago follow a much more thematic approach to hearingsemanating from their respective committees on education. The benefits of this approach are thatit naturally leads to comprehensive legislation as well as encourages interagency communication.

A comprehensive agenda of hearings and oversight would be prudent to improve the Council’sefficiency and effectiveness. However, the timelines below are only examples of possibilities anddoes not constitute a recommended agenda.

COW #1 COW #2 COW #3 COW #4 COW #5 COW #6 COW #7 COW #8


Figure 9: Suggested Model an of Oversight Timeline

Office of the

StateSuperintendent

of Education

Office of theOmbudsman

for Public

Education

Office of the

PublicEducation

Facilities

Modernization

Interagency

Collaboration

and Integrated

ServicesCommission

District of

ColumbiaPublic Schools

University of the District of

Columbia

Other Relevant

EducationAgencies /

Providers

Early

Childhood

Education

Pre-K to 12th

Grade

Education &School

Improvement

Special

Education

Literacy &Adult and

Family

Education

Post-

Secondary

Education &

Career and

TechnicalEducation

DCPS Budget& Operations

Interagency

Collaboration

and IntegratedServices

Vouchers andSchool Choice

/ Charter

Schools



68

Mandated Reports by the “Public Education Reform Amendment Act of 2007”

A significant component of accountability for public education is accountability. To achieve this, the “Public Education ReformAmendment Act of 2007,” passed on June 12, 2007, contains several new reporting requirements for District of Columbia agencies. A

list of reports, along with a description of the report, its mandated content, and deadlines are in the following table.

PERAA Section Title Report Content Timeline & Council Action

Sec. 103Mayor’s authority;

rulemaking.Promulgated rules and regulations governing DCPS.

All proposed rules must be

submitted to the Council for

a 45-day period of passivereview. Passive Approval.

Sec. 104

Budget requirements of

the District of Columbia

Public Schools.

Submitting the budget for DCPS, along with a plan detailing the allocation

of funds to each DCPS public school by program and activity level and

comptroller source group.

For FY 2009, Council may reallocate funds on a program level, but may

not exercise line-item budget authority. This does not apply to special

education programs.

For FY 2010 and FY 2011, the Mayor must also submit expenditures based

on the annual budget, as well as estimated expenditures for the current

school year, and actual expenditures from the previous year.

2/3 majority vote for

modifications.

Sec. 202(b)(7)Department of Education;

establishment; authority.

Forward to the Mayor, Chancellor, State Board of Education, and the

Council reports from the Ombudsman.

Includes analysis of the work of the previous year, including an analysis of

the types, and number, of:*Inquiries;

*Complaints and concerns resolved informally;

*Complaints and concerns examined;

* Examinations pending;

*Recommendations made; and

*Recommendations that were followed, to the extent that it can be

determined.

Within 90 days of the end of each school year. The next

report should arrive before

September 9, 2008.

Sec. 203Special education;

reporting requirement

The Department of Education shall submit a report on the status of the

development of the Special Education Reform Plan and the implementation

of recommendations adopted by the Board of Education pertaining to

special education.

Within 60 days of

applicability of PERAA.

Submitted June 12, 2007.

Sec. 204(a)(1) Evaluation and re- Projected benchmarks by which to measure annual student achievements Annually, beginning on



69


authorization. within DCPS. September 15, 2008 (for the

2009 evaluation).

Sec. 204(a)(2)(A)Evaluation and re-

authorization.

The Mayor submits an evaluation of District of Columbia Public Schools to

include an assessment of:

*Business practices;

*Human resources operations;

*All academic plans;

*Student achievement, including a detailed description of student

achievements.

Annually, beginning on

September 30, 2008.

Sec. 204(c)Evaluation and re-

authorization

The Mayor recommends an “independent evaluator” to perform annual

evaluation of DCPS.

Submitted by September 15,2007 for a 30-day review

period. Passive

Disapproval.

Sec. 204(b)Evaluation and re-

authorization

The Mayor submits a five-year assessment of the public education system

established by PERAA to include:

*A comprehensive evaluation of public education following the passage of

this act; and

*A determination as to whether sufficient progress in public education has

been achieved to warrant continuation of the provisions and requirements

of this act or whether a new law, and a new system of education, should be

enacted by the District government.

On September 15, 2012, in

lieu of the annual

evaluation. Submitted for

30-day review.

Sec. 302(e)

Transition plan for

transfer of state-level

functions

The Mayor forwards the OSSE transition plan to the Council for review to:

*Be formulated in consultation with the SBOE, DCPS, PCSB, WTU, and

with any relevant District and federal agencies;

*Identify the authority and responsibility of each entity at each stage in the

transition process;

*Specify timelines, dates, and benchmarks for completion of the transfer;*Provide an estimate of the cost to the OSSE of carrying out each

transferred function; and

*Identify any factors with potential for disrupting services to students and

recommend steps to prevent any possible disruption.

Within 90 days of the

effective date of PERAA.

Submitted September 10,2007.

Sec. 505(c)(3)(A)

Interagency Collaboration

& Integrated Services

Commission

The report will contain the status and progress of the objectives of the

Commission, including the results of the evaluation required by paragraph

(2) of this subsection and any recommendations made by the Commission

to the public, the Mayor, or the Council. It will include an annual

independent evaluation of the effectiveness of the programs supported,

facilitated, or overseen by the Commission, including:

* The impact on academic performance, levels of violence by and against

children, truancy, and delinquency; and

Annually, within 90 days

after the end of the fiscal

year.



70


*The cost effectiveness of the programs, taking into account such factors as

reductions, or potential reductions, in out-of-home placements and in law

enforcement expenditures, and the extent to which the Commission’s

member agencies have developed the capacity to sustain the programs and

activities.

Sec. 702

Office of Public Education

Facilities Modernization;

establishment.

The OPEFM shall have independent procurement and personnel authority

and shall promulgate rules to implement this authority.

All proposed rules must be

submitted to the Council for

a 45-day period of passive

review. Passive Approval.

Sec. 705 Reporting requirement.

OPEFM will submit to the Mayor, the Council, the Public SchoolModernization Advisory Committee, and the State Board of Education a

report of all the OFM activities during the preceding fiscal year to include

all related financial statements and summaries of projects, the total amount

of contract expenditures awarded to local, small, and disadvantaged

business enterprises, and the number of employees who are District

residents.

By December 1 of each

year, beginning with 2008,

Table 7: Reports to Council Mandated By PERAA

D.C. Code or Act Title Report Content Timeline & Council Action

Title 38,

Chapter 29

Universal Per-Student

Funding Formula

The Mayor and Council UPSFF need to review and revise the USPFF every

four years. The OSSE will be providing recommendations on behalf of the

Mayor.

Expected imminently.

DC Act 17-129 Facilities Work Plan The Master Facilities Plan will be submitted to Council and will include:

By May 31, 2008, with

Mayoral review every three

(3) years.

DC Act 17-129 Master Facilities Plan

Council is requiring that a work program of 2008 activities and capital

projects to be undertaken by the Office of Public Education FacilitiesModernization and a proposed organizational structure be submitted.

Within 60 days of the

effective date of this act.Due December 1, 2007.

Table 8: Other Obligations and Reports to Council



Council of the District of ColumbiaOffice of Policy Analysis

1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004