Home
Bibliography
Calendar
Columns
Dorothy Brizill
Bonnie Cain
Jim Dougherty
Gary Imhoff
Phil Mendelson
Mark David Richards
Sandra Seegars
DCPSWatch
DCWatch
Archives
Council Period 12
Council Period 13
Council Period 14
Election 1998
Election 2000
Election 2002
Elections
Election
2004
Election 2006
Government and People
ANC's
Anacostia Waterfront Corporation
Auditor
Boards and Com
BusRegRefCom
Campaign Finance
Chief Financial Officer
Chief Management Officer
City Council
Congress
Control Board
Corporation Counsel
Courts
DC2000
DC Agenda
Elections and Ethics
Fire Department
FOI Officers
Inspector General
Health
Housing and Community Dev.
Human Services
Legislation
Mayor's Office
Mental Health
Motor Vehicles
Neighborhood Action
National
Capital Revitalization Corp.
Planning and Econ. Dev.
Planning, Office of
Police Department
Property Management
Public Advocate
Public Libraries
Public Schools
Public Service Commission
Public Works
Regional Mobility Panel
Sports and Entertainment Com.
Taxi Commission
Telephone Directory
University of DC
Water and Sewer Administration
Youth Rehabilitation Services
Zoning Commission
Issues in DC Politics
Budget issues
DC Flag
DC General, PBC
Gun issues
Health issues
Housing initiatives
Mayor’s mansion
Public Benefit Corporation
Regional Mobility
Reservation 13
Tax Rev Comm
Term limits repeal
Voting rights, statehood
Williams’s Fundraising Scandals
Links
Organizations
Appleseed Center
Cardozo Shaw Neigh.Assoc.
Committee of 100
Fed of Citizens Assocs
League of Women Voters
Parents United
Shaw Coalition
Photos
Search
What Is DCWatch?
themail
archives
|
[This paper was developed by the Executive Office of the Mayor and
shared with councilmembers by the mayor in a private meeting at which
the mayor lobbied for support for his plan to abolish the elected Board
of Education.]
A Rationale for School Governance Reform
Introduction
- In the District, the Mayor has a
limited role in the management of the education system. Currently, the
Mayor appoints four members of the nine-member school board, which is
responsible-for setting education policy and for hiring a Superintendent
to oversee the operations of the DC public schools. In addition, the
Mayor directly oversees the State Education Office, which informs
education policy, collects data, and performs several other state-level
functions.
- Despite some progress under the new
leadership structure there are still management and performance
deficiencies within DCPS. Moreover state level functions continue to be
fragmented between DCPS, chartering authorities and the State Education
Office (SEO)
- Since 1991, mayors in at least six
major cities have been granted increased authority over public
education, and now appoint their local school boards and/or
superintendents. Mayoral control can ultimately have a positive impact
on local schools, but researchers have found that several variables
affect the success of these reforms:
Changing governance arrangements clearly can make a
difference in the way urban public school systems function, but such a
strategy requires the right combination of ingredients-committed and
skilled leadership by the mayor, willingness to use scarce resources, a
stable coalition of supports, appropriate education policies, and a
cadre of competent, committed professionals to implement the reforms.1
The School Governance Amendment Act of 2000 (DC Law
13-159; D.C. Official Code §1-204-95)
The current elected/appointed composition of the Board of
Education (Board) established in the. School Governance Charter
Amendment Act of 2000 (Governance Act) will sunset on June 27, 2004
The Governance Act provides that as
of June 27, 2004 there shall be a Board of Education which shall be
comprise of and selected in such manner and for such terms as shall be
provided by District law pursuant to the title. Therefore, Council may
enact any change to the Board's structure and composition, but cannot
dissolve the Board in local law.
In addition, the Governance Act requires that the
there shall be Superintendent of public schools who shall be appointed
by the Board. Thus a change in the appointment of the Superintendent
could not be enacted in local law.
A Mayor's Vision
- Mayor Williams envisions a District
of Columbia where every child, regardless of the school they attend, has
access to a high quality education in a healthy and safe environment.
- Since becoming Mayor, Williams has worked with the
District Council to increase funding for public education by over 40
percent. Despite continued investment however, academic improvement has
only slightly increased
- The Mayor and Council have continued
to advocate for stronger fiscal management of public education resources
(i.e. performance based budgeting, line-item budget authority, etc,).
However, if granted greater control over schools, there are a number of
programmatic and operational reforms that the Mayor and Council could
jointly implement. These include but are not limited to:
- Expand school choice options across the District by
increasing specialized and magnet programs, replicating the Oyster and
Ellington models; encouraging more quality charter schools, etc;
- Promote local school autonomy and streamline central
administration by offering high performing instructional leaders who
consistently demonstrate excellence independence from central
bureaucracy. This initiative, which is aligned with recent legislation
introduced by Councilmember Chavous, would also allow central
administration to provide greater support to low-performing schools and
to schools in transition to self-sufficiency;
- Develop an accelerated facilities right-sizing program
aimed at sharply reducing surplus and under-utilized facilities, and
co-locating public charter schools and social services;
- Develop clear, uniform standards for early childhood
education and fully-fund early childhood education beginning at pre-K;
- Implement statewide K-12 curriculum standards for
which all schools (public, charter, and private) will be held
accountability;
- Move toward full day (7am-6pm) extended year (210
days) educational programs for all children, integrating out of school
time programs with the school day and extended year;
- Implement the District's Special Education Reform Plan
on an accelerated schedule;
- Reestablish vocational education programs to ensure
that students who wish to pursue employment in specific industries are
adequately prepared for entry into the workforce;
- Promote high-school reform centered. School districts
across the country are moving towards breaking up large high schools and
creating smaller "academies" within existing buildings. These
"schools-within-schools" have more manageable student
populations and foster better teaching and learning experiences;
- Develop a zero-based budgeting process for all public
schools to align operating and capital spending with mission, education
priorities and focus on student academic achievement. The budget process
would include adjusting funding to ensure an appropriate student-teacher
ratio system wide and would align the capital budget with current and
projected student populations and facilities needs. The budget would
also clearly delineate state and district-level expenses;
- Include pay-for-performance as criteria of collective
bargain agreements to ensure that the District retains high quality
teachers and personnel; and.
- Develop funding priorities for private and
philanthropic investment centered around clearly articulated district
wide education priorities.
Critical Next Steps (Draft Timeline for Action)
Oct-Nov 2003 Mayor and Council to
Develop Consensus on School Governance Reform Proposal
Nov-Dec 2003 Launch public engagement
campaign regarding proposals
Dec 2003-Jan 2004 Introduce local
legislation regarding school governance
Jan-Feb 2004 Council to hold public
hearings
Feb-Jun 2004 Pass local legislation
and transmit to Congress for approval (requires affirmative approval for
charter amendment; passive approval for local law)
Jul-Aug 2004 Petitions must be filed
for 2004 Board of Education elections (under hybrid or elected
structure)
New Governance Structure takes effect
Executive Office of the Mayor
Office of Policy and
Legislative Affairs
October 27, 2003
1. Cibulka, J. "Old Wine, Now Bottles."
Education Next, 1 (4), 28-35, 2002.
Back to top of page
School Governance Options
Governance Options |
Legislative Vehicle |
Policy and
Operational Considerations |
1. Status Quo (hybrid)
- This option would retain the current structure
(elected/appointed) and authority of Board of Education
(Board)
- The Board would continue to govern DCPS, appoint the
Superintendent; carry out state-level functions for all
public, and serves as a chartering authority for public
charter schools
|
Local Law |
- This structure does not ensure the Mayor and Council
increased financial accountability over the schools.
- If this option is selected the Mayor and Council may want
to explore further accountability measures such as line item
budget authority, restructuring public education funding
mechanisms, and other budget and financial controls.
|
2. All Elected Board
- Under this option Board members would be elected by the
citizens. The Mayor and Council would have to decide on the
number of Board members (the previous Board had elected (11)
members)
- The Board would continue to government DCPS, appoint the
Superintendent, carry out state-level functions for all
publics, and serves as a chartering authority for public
charter schools.
|
Local Law |
- This structure has the greatest potential to further
diffuse accountability - more elected officials would be
involved in education decision-making. Under this scenario
the Mayor and council would be farther removed from
implementing reform measures and enforcing fiscal
management.
- If the all-elected board option is selected the Mayor and
Council should explore limiting the number of members.
- Legislation must be introduced in sufficient time to allow
for ballot petitions to be filed and elections held.
|
3. All Appointed Board (with
terms)
- Under this option the Mayor would appoint all members of
the Board (subject to confirmation by the Council). Members
would serve terms as specified in law.
- The Board would continue to government DCPS, appoint the
Superintendent, carry out state-level functions for all
publics, and serves as a chartering authority for public
charter schools.
|
Local Law |
- By selecting its membership the Mayor would have greater
influence over the Board than he currently has (as would the
Council by virtue of its authority to confirm appointments).
- However, this option does not give the Mayor and Council
any direct influence over the hiring of the superintendent.
- If this option is selected the Mayor and Council may want
to explore further accountability measures such as line-item
budget authority, restructuring public education funding
mechanisms, and other budget and financial controls.
|
4. All Appointed Board (at will)
- Under this option the Mayor would appoint all members of
the Board (subject to confirmation by the Council) who would
serve at-will.
- The Board would continue to govern DCPS, appoint the
Superintendent, carry out state-level functions for all
publics, and serves as a chartering authority for public
charter
|
Local Law |
- This structure is similar to the option listed above, but
it would give the Mayor more control over the Board.
- Because members would serve at-will, the Mayor would have
greater influence over them, and would effectively have de
facto control over the appointment of the
Superintendent.
- This option may better allow the Mayor to implement fiscal
and management reforms.
|
5. Restructure Board Authority
(hybrid, elected, appointed)
Under any of the above scenarios, the Mayor and Council
could consider the following options: |
|
|
- Transfer state-level functions from Board to State
Education Office
|
Local Law -
Student Funding Formula |
- This option would address concerns about the Board's
ability to effectively monitor itself as a LEA and to
impartially provide services, oversight and monitoring for
other LEA's (i.e. charter and private schools).
- To the extent that the Home Rule Charter is silent on
state-level functions this would not require a charter
amendment. However, it would require dialogue with the
Department of Education which currently recognizes DCPS as
the state education agency for the purposes of federal grant
funding.
- This option would also require a restructuring of the
current functions of the State Education Office
|
- Remove chartering authority - all charters would be
approved and monitored by the DC Public Charter School Board
(DCPCSB)
|
Local Law - School Reform Act |
- This option would address concerns about the Board's
ability to adequately focus on charter schools given that
magnitude of issues affecting DCPS.
- It would also streamline the charter application process
and standardized the monitoring of charter schools.
- Under this option, existing Board of Education charter
schools would have to be grandfathered under the control of
the DC public Charter School Board. When their existing
charters expire schools would be require to reapply under
the new Board.
|
- Fiscal autonomy for DCPS - to include independent
taxing authority, establishing a separate revenue stream
within the general fund, or other such financial mechanisms
|
Home Rule Charter; Local Law |
- The option has significant fiscal and political
implications for both District and for DCPS specifically
(cite examples).
- The greatest challenge would be with Congress which has
historically been reluctant to grant greater fiscal
autonomy.
|
6. DCPS as Executive Agency
- Under this option the Mayor would assume management of
DCPS, similar to his authority over District agencies
currently under his purview. This option would also expand
Council's oversight of DCPS.
- The Mayor would appoint the DCPS Superintendent who, would
serve as a cabinet director
- Mayor could establish an advisory board to help establish
education policies
|
Home Rule Charter |
- The School Governance Charter Amendment Act allows the
Mayor and Council to change the composition of the board and
the manner in which board members are selected; however it
clearly states that there shall be a Board of Education.
- Dissolving the Board would require a charter amendment
(either through as a direct request from the Mayor and
Council or through a referendum initiative) transferring all
existing powers to the Executive Branch. In addition, any
provisions regarding Board authority that are currently in
local law would have to be amended.
- To the extent that Congress must affirmatively approve
charter amendments, the timing of this proposal must be
aligned with the Congressional calendar.
- Based on initial discussions with Congressional staff,
Congress does not anticipate a legislative vehicle through
which to act on the District's behalf until the middle of
2004.
- If this option is selected, the Mayor and Council might
also consider transferring state level activities to a
restructured SEO, and establishing a commission to help
oversee the establishment of new administrative policies and
procedures.
|
|