Mary Filardo, 21st Century School Fund
Testimony on the DC Public Education Reform Amendment Act of 2002
February 13, 2007

DCPSWatch Home

Major Areas
DC Public Schools
Mayoral Takeover
Special Education

State Education Agency
State Education Office
Vouchers
WTU
Wilson S.H.S.

Calendars
Board of Education
School Year

Columns
Elizabeth Davis
Ron Drake
Erich Martel
Nathan Saunders

Directories
Schools

Letters

Links

Organizations
DC Education Compact
Parents United
Proposition 100%

Press

Search

DCWatch Home

Mary Filardo, Executive Director of the 21st Century School Fund

February 13, 2007

I am Mary Filardo, executive director and founder of the 21st Century School Fund. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today. The 21St Century School Fund is a not for profit organization that is dedicated to improving urban public school buildings so they support high quality education and community vitality. Our roots are in Washington, DC-my three children all graduated from DC public schools-the first projects of the 21St Century School Fund were initiating and managing the Oyster School public private partnership and preparing the 1995 Preliminary Educational Facilities Master Plan, the first such plan for DCPS since 1967.

The 21st Century School Fund leads a national community of practice supported by the Ford Foundation, called Building Educational Success Together (BEST). BEST connects educational and community leaders from New York City, Chicago, Newark, Cincinnati, New Orleans and the Bay Area. Together we have developed model policies and identified best practice for school facility planning, creating schools as centers of community, facility management and facility funding. We also sponsor and participate in research on facilities and learning and facilities and community. We recently released a report Growth and Disparity: Ten Years of U.S. School Construction 1995-2004.

In the District of Columbia, 21st Century School Fund engages in research, advocacy and specific project development to test new practice. We are currently part of a team working with DCPS to modernize Savoy Elementary School and create a shared gym and community center on MLK, Jr. Avenue that will be in Savoy Elementary School, but be shared by Savoy, Thurgood Marshall Academy Public Charter High School, and the Department of Parks and Recreation. We are also engaged in two research studies for the State Education Office-one on enrollment patterns among District of Columbia public school children and the other a study of public charter school facility conditions and facility financial obligations.

I support whole heartedly the need to expand and coordinate public services to children and families in order for children to be successful in school. I also agree that intervention is urgently needed to improve the education of the public school children in the District of Columbia. I also concur that complex governance and a lack of accountability contribute to the slow pace of improvements in DCPS schools. However, the District of Columbia Mayoral Accountability Act of 2007 as proposed has some major shortcomings.

1. It provides less accountability than needed by maintaining the current system of the LEA and SEA reporting to the same authority.
2. It eliminates the rights of the public to be informed and participate in decisions about their public schools; and
3. It fails to offer a best practice approach to the management of public school facilities.

I will limit my testimony to Title VII of the Mayor's Accountability Reform Act which deals with facilities management and construction.
All public school students, teachers and staff are entitled to be in safe, healthy and educationally appropriate facilities. The citizens of the District deserve public schools in their communities that are sources of civic pride and that are available for community use. While this is already true in some DCPS schools and communities, this is far more the exception, than the rule.

The issue before the Council, as it relates to public school facilities, is not whether the facility conditions and excess space problems are critical and the management of facilities is inadequate-this is more than established-or whether the vision for high quality facilities is shared-this too has been clearly articulated and evidenced-but whether Title VII, as it is proposed is the best way to address the facility problems in our public schools. It is not a choice between the status quo and this one proposal. It is a choice between the proposal before the Council and many other approaches for supporting a system of well managed public school facilities.

The Mayor has looked to other cities for models of good practice, but there is no evidence to suggest that an independent school facilities authority is the right way to go if other cities or states are any measure. In fact, there is a great deal to suggest that putting in place a new public agency or transferring it to an already existing public authority will slow down forward momentum, rather than accelerate it; that it will increase costs, rather than contain them; that it will compromise quality, rather than enhance it.

There are many different models for managing school facilities and construction. I refer you to a study we did with Scientex Corporation for the World Bank on best practice in managing capital programs. We found that there were 6 elements to a well managed capital program. These were:

• good information management;
• participatory planning for master plans, capital plans and project specific planning and design;
• transparent and timely decision making;
• competent and honest program and project management;
• internal controls and external oversight; and
• stable and sufficient funding.

We found there are no short cuts and that under ANY system public authority, in-house management, or fully privatized, if these conditions are not in place, there will be problems in a school construction program.

Title VII of the legislation which establishes the Public Education Facilities Management and Construction Authority, is a real estate, financing (maybe, can't tell), maintenance, and construction authority. The scope is so broad that it is bound to create problems. I remind the Council that there are over 16 million square feet of space in the public school buildings and over 700 acres of land. This new independent authority will have the power to manage the assets, amend the facility master plan, close schools, assign space to public charter schools, maintain the buildings and plan, design and construct new schools, modernize schools, and make other capital building improvements. This authority will be bigger than either NCRC or AWC (National Capital Revitalization Corporation, Anacostia Waterfront Corporation)..

The Council and the Mayor seem to believe that there is not enough concentrated authority to manage facilities well. I believe that too much concentrated authority has been a major cause of the planning and management problems in DCPS facilities.

The BOE and superintendent have had complete control-with un-examined standards, little oversight, transparency or accountability. It is not a system that secures the best results. As Title VII is currently outlined, the same system will be in place. It is as though DC keeps trying to return to a system with three commissioners who run everything-a kept city, without civic life. This may seem counter intuitive, but I believe what DC needs is more dispersed responsibility and authority-not less. For the increasing level of investment, importance, complexity and current need, the authority and responsibility for facilities is not assumed broadly enough.

I propose the following:

IG - Inspector General; NCRC - National Capital Revitalization Corporation

OP - Office of Planning; OPM - Office of Property Management; PCSB - Public Charter School Board; SEA - State Education Agency; SEO - State Education Office.