|
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 of C. Vannessa Spinner, State Education Officer
District of Columbia State Education Office
Public Oversight Hearing Before
The Committee on Education, Libraries and Recreation
Kevin P. Chavous, Chairman
October 15, 2003
11:00 AM
Good morning Chairman Chavous and members of the Committee. I am pleased
to come before you to provide an update on the work of the State
Education Office (SEO). At our last public oversight hearing, I
indicated that we were on target with regard to our four original
responsibilities. We have continued to experience both efficiency and
effectiveness with three of those responsibilities. I will share this
morning our particular challenges with one.
In the case of the audit of the fall student enrollment count, we have
addressed the many challenges that surfaced through last year's process
of audit. Working collaboratively with the District of Columbia Public
School System (DCPS) and the leadership of the two chartering
authorities, we have been able to put into place a series of fail-safes
that include additional layers of approval as well as sign off at the
local school level for all audit completion processes. We have
established training that includes all public schools (both charters and
DCPS) for principals and business managers.
We have met continuously with representatives from the DCPS for both
general education and special education, as well as representatives from
the two chartering authorities. We have every reason to expect that this
year's audit will be a marked improvement over last year's.
Over the past three months, we have undertaken the process of
reconvening the technical working group on the Uniform Per Pupil Funding
Formula (UPPFF). This was in response to those issues that arose since
presentation of the last recommendations before the Council, such as the
major challenges between the weights for special education services at
level 4.
Another immediate priority has been the Education Licensure Commission (ELC),
which has been successfully transferred from the Department of Consumer
and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA). Again, I would like to acknowledge the
support and assistance provided by David Clark and the staff of DCRA in
this transition. We have reduced the backlog of pending cases before the
Commission to zero. We have initiated a new system for processing and
providing transcript data that reduces wait time by 50% and we are on
target with all service provision benchmarks. We are automating all
systems and have begun a legislative review that will update and ensure
consumer protection.
I am pleased to report that the Education Resource Center (ERC) is in
fact a reality. This exciting new electronic center features School Search, a consumer-friendly website that allows parents and
community members to search profiles about schools and use information
to inform their decision making about their children's education. We are
beginning the process of placing early childhood education data in an
equally user-friendly medium and expect to have the data center segment
on early childhood completed by spring 2004. This new data center is a
part of the nationally award winning municipal portal and could not have
been completed without the unique partnership that we share with Office
of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO), the Department of Human Services
(DHS) and other agencies that contribute to our information base. We are
now in conversation with the private schools of the city to hot-link
and/or include them as a part of School Search. For the first time, we
are in sight of a citywide database on education pre-K through post
secondary.
We continue to experience tremendous success with the Mayor Williams'
Adult and Lifelong Learning Initiative (literacy). As a result of
innovative partnerships with the independent sector, especially DC
Agenda, DC Learns, the National Institute on Literacy (NIFL), the
Children Youth Investment Trust Corporation (CYITC), and the DC Library,
we have been able to expand available services by more than 10%. We have
placed 20 professional Lifelong Learning Coaches in community-based
organizations around the city. We have raised an additional $2 million
to support expanded adult and parent literacy and we look forward to opening our first three Lifelong Learning Centers over the
next quarter.
I am equally as pleased to report that we continue to increase our
capacity to support the postsecondary aspirations of our residents
through expanded postsecondary financial assistance. Both the Tuition
Assistance Grant Program (TAG) and the Leveraging Education Assistance
Partnership Program (LEAP) have expanded to serve more students over the
past two years. We have been lucky enough to automate many of these
systems to ensure both quality and efficiency of service.
In addition to these program efforts, the Policy, Research and Analysis
Unit has supported an increased number of public convenings like the
Special Education Task Force and the focus groups on education data
standards and Public Conversations on "No Child Left Behind".
Additionally, PR&A has commissioned and managed the production of
three studies and numerous analyses as listed in the written response to
Council inquiry provided by the Committee Chair.
Finally, I would like to take this opportunity talk about our work with
the State Agency for Nutrition Services. This has been an especially
challenging year. We began the summer with high hopes. We had brought on
a number of new sponsors and sites including the DC Black Church
Initiative, and we had put into place major plans for reducing the
number of disallowed meals. As the spring progressed, it became more and more apparent that we would
not have final numbers on DCPS sites until May. We also observed that
the National School Lunch Program (NSLPExtended) was continuing to
increase in its numbers. This set of unique circumstances placed our
million-meal benchmark for the Summer Food Services Program in jeopardy.
While we would be feeding just as many young people, they would not all
be in the same program and what we viewed as success had the potential
of being viewed as failure to meet the established stretch goal. We also
created something of a communications conflict when we shifted our
targets from a calculation of number of children served to a more
accurate but less appealing benchmark of meals served.
Our basic strategy was two fold. By increasing monitoring, technical
assistance and training, we expected to reduce the number of disallowed
meals and encourage sponsor retention. By focusing on a collaborative
outreach plan and attempting to bring as many new sponsors and sites on
board, we hoped to increase markedly our penetration into areas of
greatest need. We were extremely successful at reducing disallowance. We
were not as successful at transitioning in new sponsors. We learned a
difficult lesson about ambitious projecting; nonetheless, we did
increase the number of meals served through the SFSP by 18% and between
the SFSP and the NSLP-Extended meals, we provided more than 60,000 meals
over our million-meal target. More importantly, we were able to markedly
increase our baseline of data on implementation of the program and we
are using what we have learned to inform the planning for next year that is already underway.
Needless to say, this Committee is owed an apology for our ambitious
projecting and any confusion that we might have caused with the change
from children served calculation to meals served numbers. I apologize
for both areas of confusion.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
provide testimony before you and I stand ready to answer any questions.
Back to top of page
The Committee on Education, Libraries, and Recreation: Public Hearing
October 15, 2003
Reuben L. Gist, Capital Area Food Bank
Director of Advocacy and Community Outreach
202-526-5344, ext. 295, gistr@cfoodbank.org
/ reuben_1@msn.com
The General Principles section of a District of Columbia Performance
Contract states: "The citizens of the District of Columbia deserve
the best city in America, the very best. To realize this vision of making our city the best city, we need to promote good
government, efficient and effective government. Government has to
deliver. It has to work We don't need promises. We don't need excuses. We need results."
In 1999, the CAFB was given a contract by SNAC to evaluate the SFSP. In
2000 the CAFB was given a contract to organize outreach assistance.
Beginning in 1999 and continuing through the present, the CAFB has
invested its own funds to augment outreach efforts which has included
interior and exterior metro bus placards, the printing of thousands of
door hangers (in Spanish and English) while partnering with the DC Fire
Department and EMS to ensure distribution to the most needy areas of the
city. Additionally, the CAFB has used movie theater ads, flyers, posters
and the print and electronic media to promote the SFSP. For more than 5
years the food bank dedicated its "Hunger Life Line" as a 24
hour tool to aid people in identifying the feeding site closest to where
they live.
In 2002 we were asked to implement a private-sector initiative that was
to support and enhance the SFSP by providing a third meal and weekend
groceries. At its peak in July, some 19,000 children were receiving the
third meal daily and weekend groceries. The food bank was asked by USDA
to become a sponsor in the SFSP in August to increase the feeding effort
of the SEO/SNAC. We knew this would most likely mean a financial loss,
but we did it, we blamed no one for the losses and we committed to
becoming a full sponsor in 2003. Since 1999 the food bank has used
almost $500,000 of its own funds in support of the city's efforts to
feed children over the summer months.
However, the Capital Area Food Bank will not participate in the 2004
SFSP as long as the current leadership remains at the SEO and at SNAC.
This begs the question, why?
It begins with the general principles section of that performance
contract and ends with the culmination of events and actions that
brought us to realize that the food bank was a target, not a welcome
partner. From the onset inaccurate and unreliable information impaired
and inhibited our ability to operate at the most efficient and effective
levels. The integrity of our motives and our efforts was attacked. Our
level of competency was disrespected, and we were the direct recipients
of condescending and punitive actions of the SEO and SNAC. The effort to
denigrate our work was systemic and counter productive. It also began
affecting the food bank in other ways. **
Publicly, beginning with the March 25th hearing:
- In response to questions concerning potential sponsors, the SEO/SNAC
never indicated the intent of the CAFB to participate, although the food
bank had already submitted a letter of intent to sponsor up to 60 sites.
- The SEO/SNAC repeatedly spoke of avoiding the
problems and fiasco of last summer, particularly in terms of disallowed
meals (a vague reference to the food bank losses in August, as if they
had anything, whatsoever, to do with the 22% decrease in meals served
and the 40% decrease in children being fed).
- An announcement was made that a special faith-based
initiative would feature a sponsor of some 40 to 60 faith-based sites.
- The SEO/SNAC claimed that 31,000 children were fed
in the 2002 SFSP and on various dates thereafter stated that they would
feed 36,867, 46,000, 49,834 and 47,000 kids this year.
Without going into all of the specifics everyone in this room knows, or
should know, by now, that none of it was accurate. For the food bank,
the 2003 SFSP effort was a monumental task that produced outstanding
results, in spite of, rather than because of the SEO/SNAC.
- We submitted our application on time, May 16, 2003
- Although our letter of intent and the application indicated our
desire to sponsor up to 60 sites, we were conditionally approved on June
19th to operate only 30 sites. Why wasn't conditional approval given to
sponsor up to 60 sites and a waiver sought for that number? We later
found out that USDA had approved the food bank to operate up to 80
sites. But we were never informed of this by the SEO/SNAC, even though
USDA instructed them to inform the food bank of this matter.
- Our vendor contract required 48 hours notice for meals to be ordered
for a site. This contract was approved by the SEO/SNAC. Yet, it was not
until 11:57 pm on June 23rd that the SEO/SNAC informed the food bank as
to which of its sites were approved to be open on June 24th (some 8
hours later.).
- From the onset, the SEO/SNAC monitoring of CAFE sites was punitive in
its nature, excessive, incomplete, inaccurate, disruptive and not
conducive to ensuring a successful effort. Some pre-operational visits
were conducted in July and August, well after the sites were up and
operational. Some sites had as many as 8 to 10 monitor visits, while 11
of our sites never had a single visit from an SEO/SNAC monitor. We were
constantly being told by the SEO/SNAC that our sites had serious
problems, yet no information or documentation was provided on these
allegations until August 20th (and then only after copies of all monitor
reports had been requested by the food bank in late July). Ultimately,
what was finally turned over was incomplete and they contained shocking
information. **
- Initially we were having meals disallowed because the sites had not
been approved by the SEO/SNAC. Other meals were being disallowed based
on issues not supported by documentation or could not have been
supported by the actual viewing of the stated problems based on the
arrival times of the monitors in relation to the time the meals were
served.
- On June 16th, the food bank requested a list of all sponsors, sites,
hours of operation and meal times so they could be entered into our
hotline database. We were receiving calls requesting information on
feeding sites and due to the fact that the SEO/SNAC never provided any
of that critical information, we could not help the callers. We were
told by the SEO/SNAC to use information on their flyers and their web
page. Information on both, from the onset and throughout the summer, was
inaccurate and incomplete. When a list was finally given to the food
bank in mid-August, it was also inaccurate and incomplete, not to
mention too late to be of any use. The food bank spent over $10,000 in
metro bus and movie theater ads.
- The SEO/SNAC performed the Administrative Review of the food bank
that only covered the June-July period, not the entire program period
through the end of August. The only items reviewed were the vendor meal
tickets and the date on the master business license of the vendor. There
was no face-to-face close out, as was done when USDA performed this same
review. However, in addition to the 70 meals that we previously had been
informed would be disallowed, an additional 170 meals and some food
costs were disallowed, based on this review (all of which we are
confident will be successfully challenged because of supporting
documentation). **
- When USDA came to perform our Administrative Review, an individual
who was an SEO/SNAC monitor, came to the food bank and for 2 days, sat
in a chair, read magazines, wrote letters, talked on a cell phone and
did nothing to assist or work with the USDA; when inquired as to why she
was there, she stated that she was there to provide oversight.
- According to the SEO and SNAC, the food bank was the only
organization that had any meals disallowed, in 2003 and also in 2002. **
- On September 9th, the President/CEO and other staff were told by the
SFSP specialist the exact amount of our reimbursement claim for
June-July and that we would have it by September 22nd Regulation
225.9(d)4 states that all reimbursement claims are to be paid within 45
days of their submission. We received our payment on October 6th, almost 2
weeks past the 45 day deadline.
These are but some of the difficulties that confronted us throughout
this past summer. However, the food bank:
- promoted the SFSP, city-wide with metro bus
placards and movie theater ads
- sponsored 61 sites, which served more than 160,000
meals to approximately 4300 children
- had 11 sites in low-income housing areas
- had 18 faith-based sites
- had 3 charter school sites
- sponsored one DCPS summer school site and fed
summer school students, even though DCPS was a sponsor and actually
asked the SEO/SNAC to have this site given to them, but the SEO/SNAC
never made it happen
- after the administrative reviews, it appears that
we may have served up to or more than 15% of all meals served and up to
20% of all children fed, with less than a 3% rate of meals disallowed
Misinformation, inaccurate information and no information all lead to
confusion, and in programs such as this, potential financial nightmares.
Any problems beset any sponsors this summer, were not their fault. The
entity there to provide leadership, training and technical assistance
failed. It failed from the top down. When the top leadership indicates
on more than one occasion that we do not have hungry children in our
city and then offers reasons for poor turnouts as being due to a
tradition where parents send their children to the country, it should
surprise no one why this program has been poorly operated the past two
years. The supplemental child nutrition feeding programs, not just the
SFSP, administered under the SEO and SNAC had an almost 14% reduction in
participation in 2002. It is hard to see how that trend has reversed
itself. After five years of coming before this committee, this is a sad
day. This is a sad day for the children in the nation's capital because
those entrusted with the resources to help them, have shown very little
concern for hungry children. This is a sad day for our city because our
capabilities and all the good that we can do and have to offer is
tarnished and tainted by this ineptitude. The information that is
continually put forward by the SEO/SNAC, while ascetic and plentiful, in
terms of its accuracy and verifiability, it fails the scrutiny of the
light of day. It was said that even with the debacle of last summer, the
District of Columbia still ranked number one in the percentage of
children eligible for free and reduced price meals being fed over the
summer. Someone needs to tell the 10,000 fewer children fed last summer
that their sacrifice did not hurt the city's statistical ranking.
Perhaps the 10,000 fewer children fed last summer became the excuse for
the poor numbers this summer. Or perhaps the leaders of the SEO/SNAC are
correct in their assumption that we do not have hungry children in our
city. Don't believe for one instant that childhood hunger is not a
problem in the nation's capital, regardless of what may have been said
by the leaders of the agency responsible for administering a program
designed as a tool to help end childhood hunger. It is choice, not
chance which determines destiny. Let us choose wisely for the destiny of
our children. **
"I do the best I know how, the very best I can; and I mean to keep
doing it to the end. If the end brings me out all right, what is said
against me will not amount to anything. If the end brings me out all
wrong, ten angels swearing I was right, would make no difference."
Abraham Lincoln
Thank you and I am now prepared to answer any questions which you may
have.
|
