Jay Silberman
Testimony on the DC Public Education Reform Amendment Act of 2002
February 20, 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

Testimony, City Council, February 20

I read from a Washington Post editorial: “The District public school system is in a condition of crisis. In personnel and in plant, it is inadequate to the pupil population it is supposed to serve. . . . Washington’s children are being cheated . . . denied their educational birthright.” The date? Not today, or yesterday. Not five years ago, or ten, or twenty. The editorial is from November 23, 1955.

There is an ancient dictum from Hippocrates: “First, do no harm.” 

Frontiersman David Crockett’s version was: “First, be sure you are right. Then go ahead.”

Are you certain, absolutely sure, that the "District of Columbia Public Education Reform Amendment Act of 2007," Bill 17-0001 is right, and will do no harm? You are a deliberative body; let’s deliberate on this.

Or, as the citizenry might glean from press reports and from some of your statements, has the train already left the station? Is this bad bill a done deal? 

When the previous mayor, Mr. Williams, proposed what Mr. Fenty is now proposing, Mr. Fenty criticized such a takeover of the schools. 

Mr. Fenty had it right and well-reasoned the first time. 

Mr. Fenty did not propose or advocate a takeover when he was running for mayor. His education position paper – which was fairly good and for which I complimented him when he knocked on my door – made no mention of any plan or intent for a takeover. Only after the election did he announce his change of mind. 

What changed his mind is not clear, or readily apparent.

He does say that he has acted because so many citizens, during the campaign, urged that he “do something” to help boost the schools. But that wide-spread desire for “doing something” to improve schools doesn’t translate to “just do anything” and it absolutely does not justify a plan-less, road-map-less, train-track-less seizure of power or permanent re-write of our government’s structure under the home rule charter.

Because if the train has left the station, and if the locomotive is churning fast (too fast even to apply brakes), and if there is no planned route for this train and if there are no tracks . . . .well, then, inevitably, undoubtedly, unavoidably . . . . there will be a train wreck.

The rationale seems to be that Mr. Fenty basically feels that Mr. Williams would not have done a good job, but that he, Mr. Fenty, will do a great job. Blind ambition?

What, in fact, he would do with this control is also not clear, or even apparent. The Mayor’s bill does not say what he would do, and he has provided no specifics, no plan, no road map. The Mayor’s proposed bill simply transfers all control regarding schools to him. And then says, implicitly, “trust me, I mean well.”

Well, let’s assume, for a moment, that Mr. Fenty is absolutely 100% personally committed to better schools, absolutely willing to ride personal herd on this, sacrificing sleep, jogging time, and willing to make other city responsibilities second- or third-fiddle for four or eight years as he brings Socrates’ knowledge and Solomon’s wisdom, Superman’s energy, Gandhi’s purpose, Albert Schweitzer’s humanity and Horace Mann’s educational vision to the task. 

What about after that? Because he is asking to change the home rule charter and to restructure our government, not for the length of his term, but permanently.

When he leaves office, then what? What if subsequent mayors are not quite up to snuff? Or maybe use schools for filling patronage jobs? Or get distracted by a recession? A crime wave? Another new stadium or arena? Or are just not particularly interested in or knowledgeable about schools? Then what?

Now, in fact, past mayors (and council members, for that matter) have shown a wide range of degrees of interest, expertise, understanding and commitment to public education. Our previous mayor – the aforementioned Mr. Williams – who also proposed “taking over” the schools to the expressed opposition of Mr. Fenty, did get to appoint school board members. You may also recall his appointees, Roger Wilkins and Charles Lawrence, resigning because, as they stated publicly, the Mayor wouldn’t even meet with them. What does that say about the possible vagaries – the changeable winds -- of mayoral involvement?

When I was a school board member, we met several times with mayors and council members and, after much discussion, came to agreements about our closing of schools, cutting staff, and other measures. We lived up to our commitments; regrettably, those mayors and council members reneged on many of theirs – to the detriment of the schools. 

Governance is neither the primary issue nor problem; so therefore changing it or rearranging it is not the primary solution. If you want proof, just think back a bit: Neither the last takeover (Control Board) nor the reconstituted Board (a quasi takeover by placing mayoral appointees on School Board) resolved or cured anything. Isn’t that convincing enough that governance is not the answer? 

Yet there are problems in the governance structure than can and should be addressed.

We have a system of split or fractured governance -- jerry-rigged, convoluted governance with multiple layers of responsibility and control. Nobody has full authority and so, therefore, nobody is fully accountable.

The responsibility of a board of education is to establish policy and to watch over public schools. Period. Its focus is only on schools. And, by the way – though there has been barely any examination or discussion of this fact – the policies of the Board of Education are generally quite sound. The school board is not the problem. Setting it aside is not the solution.

Mayors and councils, on the other hand, are jacks-of-all-trades (and, some might say, are masters of none). They deal with health, welfare, police, the fire department, social services, senior citizens, business regulation, economic development, transportation, trash collection, cleaning up the Anacostia, ambulance service, libraries, the coroner’s office.

I submit that – just as envisioned in the home rule charter – policy-making and proper oversight for the schools is at least a half-time responsibility, if not more. I predict that, if you try to do all of the above plus take on responsibility for the schools, that some things, probably many things, will necessarily get short-shrifted. (There are those who believe that many areas already within your purview are already consistently short-shrifted.)

By the way, we’ve tried absolute executive control of the schools before. Doesn’t anyone remember General Becton? Arlene Ackerman? They didn’t have to deal with the school board at all, and their ability to act, to fix, to alter, to change was about as absolute as it gets in this country. They were smart, well-intended. The real problems facing our schools (forget this distracting political side-show) are significant, often intractable, often societal and socioeconomic and are not readily or quickly resolved. When Becton and Ackerman (and, for that matter, Paul Vance, who was a perfectly capable superintendent in Montgomery County) left as superintendent of schools, they each complained bitterly about potshots, second-guessing and being undermined – not by the school board – but by the Mayor and Council. That’s why I, personally, want schools as far away from politics and the District Building as possible. 

There is, at present, no designated revenue source for funding public education; schools compete with potholes, police, stadium deals, homelessness, poverty, perquisites, pay raises, business tax breaks and everything else for funds from among the general pot.

The annual budget struggle is the greatest single problem and ramification of our divided form of school governance, and it is the regrettable source of endless and futile finger-pointing and blame among the Mayor, Council, and the school board. It is a distraction, a side-show, a sick joke and it should be fixed.

How, you might ask?

In many other jurisdictions, the property tax is the dedicated revenue source for funding schools. The only significant downside to using the property tax for schools is that, within some states, there are large disparities in property values between rich and poor areas which create significant inequities among school districts. But DC is one single district, so no such equity issue faces our use of property taxes for funding our schools. 

Dedicating the property tax to schools is the best, simplest fix. Doing that, and aligning responsibility with accountability, in one place – in an entity focused solely and squarely on schools: the school board – could end the finger-pointing. 

Other points and problems regarding this bill:

State function and oversight -- All states have a state-level body that oversees the many school districts within a state, devises state-wide standards, and which monitors Federal funding and requirements. Since DC only has one school district, the Superintendent is also the chief state school officer and the school board is the state board. That situation creates an anomaly that I recognized and commented on years ago: the state and local responsibilities are vested in the same place. How does one objectively oversee, monitor, and evaluate oneself? So, yes, an adjustment, an independent State Education Agency (SEA) is appropriate. But that is not what the bill creates. Under the Fenty bill, the school district is in his left hand and the SEA is in his right. Both report to him. Where is the independence?

Personnel and procurement -- The schools need personnel and procurement systems particularly suited to their purpose and needs. The Fenty bill would actually make these matters worse, by imposing a problematic procurement system and an even worse personnel system. When I was on the school board, we had a very successful Direct Acquisition Purchasing System, an innovation introduced by my capable colleague R. David Hall, which provided for effective and streamlined direct purchasing by each school. We need more of that, not bureaucratic backsliding. The Mayor’s bill would also put all school staff under the Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act, a horrible dinosaur of a personnel system that I have previously dubbed Personnelosaurus Rex. The Educational Service, which has its own problems but which is measurably better, more attuned to schools and more flexible from a management perspective, would be eliminated. That would be a big mistake. (Note: In the past, the schools have been saddled with running two personnel systems; teachers and professional staff under the Educational Service and support staff under the Merit Personnel Act. For the sake of sanity, efficiency and fairness to all school staff, all should be within the Educational Service).

Ombudsman -- The schools have long needed, and in fact have had, an ombudsman. The ombudsman has needed sufficient resources and greater independence. The Fenty bill creates a new ombudsman but doesn’t solve the problems. Fenty’s proposed ombudsman reports to him, and to his deputy. Again, where is the needed independence?

Board of Education – The Mayor has said that, under his bill, the Board of Education will still have an important role, as the State board. But the language of the bill shows that not to be true. The bill itself has only a window-dressing advisory board, which reports to the Mayor’s designee and is authorized only to approve his/her recommendations. This is backwards, it is topsy-turvy; it does not work that way elsewhere. Here is how it works in neighboring Maryland (from their official website): “The Board sets the state’s education policies and standards for pre-kindergarten through high school and for Maryland’s public libraries and correctional education and vocational rehabilitation services. It passes regulations that have the force of law and is empowered to interpret the true meaning and intent of the law. The state superintendent of schools is chosen by the Board for a four-year, renewable term and acts as its secretary-treasurer. She does not have a vote but does have an advisory role and is the administrative head of the State Department of Education.”

The Council should not rubber-stamp the Mayor’s proposal.

The Council should legislate, carefully, appropriately and deliberatively.

Here is a suggested outline for legislation.

A Legislative Proposal:

The District of Columbia Public Education Reform and Accountability Act of 2007

1. The Board of Education, an independent agency of the District of Columbia, shall be comprised of five members elected at-large and, as ex- officio members: the Mayor (or designee); the Chairman of the Council (or designee); the Chairman or designee of the Federal City Council; and the President or designee of the Consortium of Universities. The Superintendent of Schools shall be a member of the Mayor’s cabinet.
   Comments: A mix of elected and ex-officio members -- including the Mayor, Council, business and university sectors – would bring balance and involvement, as would the Superintendent meeting with the Mayor’s cabinet. Having at-large members brings a broad perspective and reduces us-them sector/neighborhood conflict.
2. The elected members shall, each in succession, preside over the meetings of the Board for a calendar year.
   Comments: Rotating the responsibility of presiding over meetings, and limiting the role to that of presiding, reduces factionalization or power-tripping within the board.
3. No elected member of the Board may, during his term of service, run for another elective office.
   Comments: One of the historical and regrettable facts since the inception of home rule has been the sometime and unfortunate jealousies, rivalries, and relationships between school board members and Council members. Service on the board has too often been seen as a political steppingstone. Consequently, many board members have run, successfully or unsuccessfully, for the Council. Many Council members have therefore been unable or unwilling to cooperate with the school board, for fear that it will advance a contender for his/her seat. This limitation on running will reduce some of these concerns.
4. The property tax is dedicated as the source of funds for operation of the DC Public Schools, and the Board shall have rate-setting and revenue authority relating thereto.
5. All employees of the DC Public Schools shall be employed under the Educational Service and subject to its rules and requirements.
6. Chapters 10-14 of the DCMR relating to personnel policies and provisions are comprehensively revised, per Board action of December 1996.
   Comments: These comprehensive revisions were passed over a decade ago, were never taken up during the Control Board period, and have languished since. They would substantially strengthen the personnel policies and practices within the school system.
7. Establishment of a School Construction and Management Authority, reporting to the Superintendent and Board but operationally independent. The Authority shall, consistent with programmatic needs (present and planned) and policies determined by the Board, be responsible for all capital requirements of the schools, buildings, and grounds; construction; reconstruction and renovation; and for the management and optimal utilization of all school properties as a real estate portfolio, including partnerships and use of properties so as to maximize benefit to and revenue for the programs of DCPS. It may perform its functions or it may contract any part with qualified companies and entities. The Authority shall also submit an annual report to the Council.
   Comments: As one of the godfathers of the concept of a School Construction Authority more than a decade ago, I support the establishment of such an entity. Educators can define program and building needs and priorities, but they are not engineers, construction managers, or skilled in creative multiple use and maximization of valuable property. Neither are other arms of the city government. Most of the deterioration and obsolescence of the schools came during the several decades of management by the Department of Public Works. (Who can forget the costly but uninhabitable vocational school they built near the Government Printing Office? It stood an unusable hulk for years.) The city’s stewardship of dozens of closed schools has not benefited the DCPS or its students. Instead of maximizing the use of these building and/or land assets, almost all have stood unutilized or badly under-utilized. Instead, they should have yielded significant assets toward school construction and modernization. One of the most spectacular giveaways of valuable real estate include the sale, for peanuts, of Randall Junior High School’s sprawling site in view of the Capitol dome – to a tax-exempt art school – a site that could have yielded a fortune from a sale or lease and added significantly to the tax base. Proper portfolio management could help significantly to fund the schools’ future capital needs. If class sizes are reduced and teacher-student ratios improved to optimal standards, we would need more classrooms. Likewise, if middle-class families are drawn to and stay in the city, the need for school space will increase. We must be prepared accordingly. And, following the example of Montgomery County and others, we should move toward building new, up-to-date, schools rather than try to patch up ancient, functionally obsolete buildings. It is more effective educationally, and less expensive to boot. 
8. The State Education Agency shall be established within the office of the Mayor and shall have state-level responsibility and authority in conjunction with federal statutes, grants and responsibilities.
   Comments: This structure provides the necessary separation needed for independent oversight.
9. Ombudsman – There shall be an empowered, independent ombudsman within DCPS, sufficiently funded and staffed. Board members shall refer constituents’ non-policy and non-informational operational concerns to the ombudsman, (as shall the Council and Mayor).
   Comments: Most constituent/parent/student matters should be channeled through this office, thus avoiding overlap, duplication of effort, needless conflict, or micro-managing.
10. Compensation of elected members of the Board shall be one-third of the rate of compensation paid to members of the Council.
    Comments: Under the home rule charter’s original provisions, Board member compensation was set at one-half of the rate paid to Council members. In ensuing years, the Council has regularly raised its pay while repeatedly reducing Board member compensation. The provision would restore a degree of parity, albeit at a lower rate for Board members. A fair compensation for Board service, taking into account time commitments and impact on career and family, is only reasonable. 

Again, this is but an outline for legislation. But it is substantive and geared toward the true needs of and issues facing the schools. It will need additional work, thought and study, as well as the pen of legislative counsel to whip it into shape. But please, please do not rubber-stamp the Mayor’s power-seizing, plan-less plan. At best, it by itself resolves nothing. At worst, it is dangerous.

I offer to work with you toward crafting an intelligent and appropriate bill.

I close by coming back to the prescient -- to the Post’s crystal-ball editorial from more than 50 years ago, from 1955.

The Post warned of many things:

“A disturbing drift of students from economically and intellectually advantaged families away from public and into private schools [which] will add to the impoverishment of the public school system.”

“The inadequacy of the schools constitutes a blight on the whole city. If it is allowed to continue, Washington will become a less desirable place to live. It will suffer also in terms of the inescapable consequences of poor schooling – increased juvenile delinquency, diminished civic responsibility, slackened economic enterprise.”

“An overriding need to augment the number of teachers in ratio to the number of students . . . . the formulation and financing of a genuinely adequately school budget.”

All that was predicted came true. Ah, if only we had heeded the warnings! Or the many similar warnings since!

Please, let us not, yet again, go charging down a wrong path, to do the wrong things, for the wrong reasons. Please, can’t we just once be careful, studious, thoughtful and judicious, and commence upon and stick to a path that will work?

I am literally begging you to do so. I’ve been at this – through PTAs, Parents United, and the school board -- since my oldest child went off to pre-kindergarten in 1979. A year ago, he made me a grandfather. I have graying hair, Mr. Gray! That is just too damn long, and this is too damn important. This time, at long last, please, let’s get it right.