<DOC>
[109th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:27852.wais]
MAKING THE GRADE? EXAMINING DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS REFORM
PROPOSALS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 28, 2006
__________
Serial No. 109-146
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
27-852 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DIANE E. WATSON, California
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
DARRELL E. ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JON C. PORTER, Nevada C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina Columbia
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania ------
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio (Independent)
------ ------
David Marin, Staff Director
Larry Halloran, Deputy Staff Director
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 28, 2006................................... 1
Statement of:
Johnson, Henry L., Assistant Secretary of Education for
Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of
Education, accompanied by Hudson La Force III, Senior
Counsel to the Secretary; Dr. Clifford Janey,
superintendent, District of Columbia Public Schools; John
Musso, chief financial officer, District of Columbia Public
Schools; Charles Willoughby, inspector general, District of
Columbia, accompanied by William DiVello, assistant
inspector general for audits, Office of the Inspector
General, District of Columbia; and Cedric Jennings,
District of Columbia Public School graduate................ 11
Janey, Clifford 21
Jennings, Cedric 56
Johnson, Henry L. 11
Musso, John 36
Willoughby, Charles 43
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland, prepared statement of............... 78
Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia, prepared statement of................... 4
Janey, Dr. Clifford, superintendent, District of Columbia
Public Schools, prepared statement of...................... 23
Johnson, Henry L., Assistant Secretary of Education for
Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of
Education, prepared statement of........................... 14
Musso, John, chief financial officer, District of Columbia
Public Schools, prepared statement of...................... 38
Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, a Delegate in Congress from the
District of Columbia, prepared statement of................ 9
Ruppersberger, Hon. C.A. Dutch, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Maryland, prepared statement of.......... 82
Willoughby, Charles, inspector general, District of Columbia,
prepared statement of...................................... 45
MAKING THE GRADE? EXAMINING DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS REFORM
PROPOSALS
----------
FRIDAY, APRIL 28, 2006
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room
2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tom Davis (chairman
of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Tom Davis, Cummings, and Norton.
Staff present: David Marin, staff director; Larry Halloran,
deputy staff director; Keith Ausbrook, chief counsel; Rob
White, communications director; Shalley Kim, professional staff
member; Teresa Austin, chief clerk; Sarah D'Orsie, deputy
clerk; Kim Trinca, minority counsel; Earley Green, minority
chief clerk; and Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk.
Chairman Tom Davis. The committee will come to order.
Welcome to today's hearing on the District of Columbia's public
school system.
The District of Columbia Financial Responsibility
Management Assistance Authority was put in place by Congress in
April 1995 to turn around the city during a financial crisis.
The control board conducted an extensive review of the
District of Columbia Public Schools and concluded that the
system was in disarray. ``The deplorable record of the
district's public schools by every important educational and
management measure, has left one of the city's most important
public responsibilities in a state of crisis, creating an
emergency which can no longer be ignored or excused,'' the
Control Board said. ``DCPS is failing in its mission to educate
the children of the District of Columbia in virtually every
area and every grade level, the system has failed to provide
our children with a quality education in a safe environment in
which to learn.''
Today, at a time when so many things are going right in the
Nation's Capital, DCPS continues to be plagued by management
problems, declining enrollment, crumbling facilities,
escalating violence and substandard academic achievement.
The fact is, the District's improved health cannot be
sustained without a better public school system. Families are
left with unenviable or unattainable choices, move out, try to
switch to charter schools with mixed records themselves, win
the lottery for a scholarship for the private school through
the DC School Choice program, or succumb to the fact that their
children are going to have to succeed in spite of, rather than
due to, the educational climate.
It is not impossible to succeed in D.C. public schools, but
the journey is difficult. One of our witnesses today, Cedric
Jennings, is here to talk about those obstacles and how he was
able to overcome them.
The number of D.C. schools identified as in need of
improvement increased from 15 in 2003 to 71 in 2004, and 80 in
2005. According to the Nation's report card, a report released
in 2005 by the National Center for Educational Statistics, only
10 percent of fourth graders and 7 percent of eighth graders
are proficient in mathematics. And only 11 percent of fourth
graders and 12 percent of eighth graders are proficient in
reading.
DCPS is currently at the lowest levels of State educational
agency performance as measured by the National Assessment of
Educational Progress.
Superintendents have come and gone with different ideas
about how to reform the system. Past experience demonstrates
that change cannot happen in a relatively short period of time,
and progress will not be easy.
No plan can succeed without perseverance and stable
leadership. Superintendent Clifford Janey gives D.C. a chance
at stability. Dr. Janey has the burden to fix many problems
that predate his arrival.
Almost a year ago, Superintendent Janey testified before
this committee and discussed a new strategic plan called the
``Declaration of Education: Keeping Our Promise to the
District's Children.''
The initiatives aimed at raising academic achievement in
every classroom and in every school.
There are three goals that guide the declaration,
academics, management systems and communication, including the
plan as a framework to raise student achievement by retaining
and training high quality teachers and principals, engaging
parents and communities, improving business operations in
school facilities, and implementing new curriculum standards.
We are interested to hear today how these plans are
working. But we hold this hearing against the backdrop of a
decision of the U.S. Department of Education to declare D.C.
schools a high risk grantee, once again highlighting the weak
managerial and financial controls in the system. The high risk
designation means that special conditions will be imposed on
all existing grants issued by the Department to DCPS, and if
corrective action is not taken, the loss of Federal dollars is
a real possibility.
I am interested to hear about how this designation came
about, how this move can perhaps benefit D.C. students in the
long run by forcing changes in the public school system and by
bringing more widespread community resources to it.
We also need to know what exactly is at stake and what is
expected of DCPS. According to the Department, DCPS failed to
meet accountability time lines and repeatedly submitted reports
late.
The Department also faulted DCPS's inability to monitor
federally funded programs and services and highlighted
systematic external control weaknesses.
In addition, the district has to do a better job
incorporating the provisions of No Child Left Behind into
planning and implementation for systemwide change.
Failure to make progress as defined by the law carries
specific and serious consequences. If the Department determines
that DCPS has not made substantial progress or met special
conditions, then the Department can consider discontinuing all
or part of one or more grants for the public school system or
take other remedial action.
This hearing gives us the opportunity to examine the
current situation and discuss the resources needed to meet the
standards set by Federal law.
I also hope to re-examine how the district exercises State
and local functions in the educational realm. No Child Left
Behind requires State education agencies to exert authority
over local school districts.
Accountability, school improvement, teacher quality, and
increased reporting requirements are four core features. There
are four areas that the D.C. needs to significantly improve.
The district must navigate a complex relationship between State
and local educational functions. DCPS is both the State and
local educational education agency, and therefore monitors its
own Federal compliance. Previously, DCPS was the only local
school district in the District of Columbia. However, there are
no charter schools that serve a significant population of
students.
Under this arrangement, the DCPS superintendent also serves
as the chief state educational officer responsible for carrying
out State level functions, including oversight of DCPS
operations. The responsibility is that in almost every other
jurisdiction would be carried out by a separate State
educational agency.
While public charter schools are not under the auspices of
DCPS, and are each considered an independent local education
agency for State-level purposes, the school system performs
State-level functions on their behalf.
Faced with pressures to have State-level functions
performed by an entity other than DCPS, the District created
the Office of the State Education, allowing public school
system to concentrate its resources on improving teaching and
learning.
Currently, the SEO exercises limited State functions,
auditing annual enrollment, issuing rules for annual
verification of D.C. residency, studying and making
recommendations on the uniform per student funding formula, and
State agency functions for the Department of Agriculture
grants.
I am eager to learn how reform efforts are proceeding and
how students, teachers, administrators parents and elected
officials can support the plan.
As policymakers, educators and citizens, we have to
determine our priorities and marshal the right resources. I
know we are all hoping to give all D.C. students a chance at a
brighter future. I would now recognize Ms. Norton for her
opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.003
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
your courtesies in agreeing to hold this hearing only after the
superintendent had gotten his bearings and outlined his
comprehensive reform plans for oversight by the Mayor, school
board, D.C. Council, and the residents themselves.
By the time Superintendent Clifford Janey became
superintendent in 2004, the D.C. public schools had been
without a superintendent for so long and had slipped into such
steep decline, many feared that the Nation's Capital could not
attract a competent superintendent equal to the considerable
task.
We are fortunate that Superintendent Janey took the job and
that his efforts have quieted those fears. But Dr. Janey had to
be a brave and confident man to come to the District with a
determination he has shown to pick up the pieces of a shattered
school system and take on the task of recreating the D.C.
public school system.
The D.C. schools, like the schools of every local
jurisdiction, constitute the very essence of what is meant in
the United States by local control and self-government.
But the District, like other public schools, received some
Federal funds, particularly title 1, IDEA, and some grant
funds.
This committee's approach has been consistent with the
balance between home rule and legitimate congressional concern
and interest in DCPS. I appreciate that balance, that balance
along with the tough criticism the D.C. public schools have
gotten and deserve from this committee.
I wish I could say that the Department of Education had
shown the same courtesies. We were shocked to learn a couple of
months ago through a staff conference call that the Department
officials had notified Superintendent Janey and relevant
Members of Congress that day that DCPS would be placed in a
``high risk category'' and that the Superintendent had been
presented with a letter to be released at 4 p.m. that very day
informing the press.
The Department of Education was so anxious to hang the high
risk label on the District schools endangering Federal funds
that it rushed forward without any semblance or pretense of
orderly or due process.
When questioned, the Department could name no other school
system in the continental United States that had received this
designation, but when pressed, indicated that perhaps one or
two territories had been so designated.
Notably, no State or jurisdiction that had two Senators was
named.
This much seems sure. The Department of Education would
have been reluctant to pull such a surprise attack on any of
the big cities, all of whom have struggling school systems
showing poor results, but all of whom have two Senators. It was
a stunt that resembled a surprise attack by the cops with the
press informed and the culprit put in the proverbial handcuffs
and handicapped to adequately respond.
The fairness issue was considerably compounded by the fact
that the budget years that purportedly lead to the designation
preceded this superintendent's tenure.
Responding to protest, the Department pulled back but
returned this week with a similar indictment following an
investigation and communication with DCPS. I lay this incident
on the record, not because I believe the designation was
unfair, I had no information or basis to judge anything except
the fairness of the process that was used.
I do know the difference between a fair process and a sneak
attack.
The District may not have two Senators who have numerous
ways to retaliate against such unfairness.
But the Department is on notice that the District of
Columbia will always insist that it is treated like any other
U.S. jurisdiction whose taxes pay for our government, including
the Department of Education and its personnel.
At the same time, I have never been and will never be an
apologist for the D.C. Government and especially not for its
public schools.
It breaks my heart that the public schools that were good
enough to prepare me to compete with the best and the brightest
and that the schools where my mother spent her professional
teaching career would be the subject of continuing criticism.
The strongest and most informed criticism has come not from
the Department of Education or the Congress, but from the
residents of the District of Columbia.
Therein lies the good news.
The most important issue in the city today is not crime or
health care, or even housing, as pressing as these issues are.
Ask anyone on the street in the District of any race or age or
ward, ask any D.C. businessperson, and the answer will be the
same. Education is and must be the paramount issue until the
system recovers.
There is every indication that local elected officials and
the school board are all engaged with education as the city's
most urgent issue.
What then is the role of a congressional committee several
steps removed from the day-to-day operations of a local school
system and with no direct oversight or financial
responsibility, our role is to listen, learn, and ask tough
questions of all the witnesses before us.
Our role is to convey unmistakably to all the witnesses our
concerns and expectations.
I welcome all of today's witnesses, and I thank them for
the testimony they have prepared. I know that you can depend on
the chairman and me and on my colleagues to perform the role
assigned to us of fairly reviewing the D.C. public schools
before us today.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.005
Chairman Tom Davis. Ms. Norton, thank you very much.
Members will have 7 days to submit opening statements for the
record.
We would now recognize our very distinguished panel. We
have the Honorable Henry L. Johnson, the Assistant Secretary of
Education for Elementary and Secondary Education from the U.S.
Department of Education, accompanied by Hudson la Force III,
Senior Counsel to the Secretary.
We have Dr. Clifford Janey, the superintendent of the
District of Columbia Public Schools. Dr. Janey welcome back.
Mr. John Musso, who is the chief financial officer of the
District of Columbia Public Schools. Mr. Charles Willoughby,
the inspector general of District of Columbia, accompanied by
Mr. William DiVello, assistant inspector general for Audits,
Office of the Inspector General, District of Columbia. And Mr.
Cedric Jennings, District Columbia public school graduate.
Thank you all for being here. It is our policy that we
swear witnesses in before they testify so if you would just
rise and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you. You can be seated.
Secretary Johnson, we will start with you. Thank you.
STATEMENTS OF HENRY L. JOHNSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
EDUCATION FOR ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ACCOMPANIED BY HUDSON LA FORCE III,
SENIOR COUNSEL TO THE SECRETARY; DR. CLIFFORD JANEY,
SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS; JOHN
MUSSO, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC
SCHOOLS; CHARLES WILLOUGHBY, INSPECTOR GENERAL, DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM DIVELLO, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR
GENERAL FOR AUDITS, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA; AND CEDRIC JENNINGS, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC
SCHOOL GRADUATE
STATEMENT OF HENRY JOHNSON
Mr. Johnson. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to
address this serious issue. I am Henry Johnson, Assistant
Secretary of the U.S. Office of Education, responsible for
elementary and secondary education.
I want to begin by saying how much I appreciate
Superintendent Janey's willingness to take on the tough job of
turning around D.C. public schools and his efforts to get the
system moving in the right direction.
I know of very outstanding school leaders who have passed
on applying for this because they were afraid of how tough it
is.
The D.C. public schools face many challenges. And I believe
that Superintendent Janey deserves full support of the
Department of Education and will get it, and of the Congress to
help meet these challenges.
Federal education programs provided about $120 million in
formula and discretionary grants to the District of Columbia in
fiscal year 2005, or about 12 percent of the school system's $1
billion annual budget. Moreover, Federal financial support to
the D.C. schools has grown substantially in recent years with
appropriations for No Child Left Behind programs rising by more
than $39 million, or 82 percent between fiscal year 2001 and
fiscal year 2005.
Special education funding under IDEA jumped 74 percent or
6.5 million over the same period of time.
The 2007 budget proposed by the President also provides
continued support for key D.C. education programs through a
separate $76 million request in that appropriations bill. This
includes 15 million for the opportunity scholarship program
which helps give students from low income families in the
District the same educational opportunities available to
students from wealthier families, as well as the $26 million to
support school improvement and expand the charter school effort
in D.C.
The President's request also provides $35 million for the
D.C. resident tuition assistant grant program, which allows
District residents to attend public colleges Nationwide at in-
State tuition rates.
In addition to financial support, the Department has worked
with the schools to improve student achievement, primarily
through effective implementation of the No Child Left Behind
Act. For example, we have provided technical assistance to help
the schools comply with No Child Left Behind requirements
regarding standards and assessments for all students in grades
3 through 8 and in grade 10.
This week, the DCPS is administering assessments under a
new issued competent assessment system. And in May, we will
conduct a peer review process to determine how well these align
with No Child Left Behind requirements.
We have also worked closely with the D.C. schools on the
reading first program which is now in its second year of
implementation at the classroom level in 26 schools, including
four charter schools and three private schools.
These schools have adopted scientifically based
instructional programs and materials and use extensive
professional development and technical assistance to improve
reading instruction in grades K-3.
The early results are promising, with a percentage of third
grade student reading at the proficient level and participating
schools rising from 38 percent to 52 percent after first year
of implementation.
Despite this combination of strong Federal financial
support and recent progress in implementing key Federal
education programs, the D.C. public schools has a very long way
to go when it comes to what really matters, the academic
achievement of approximately 75,000 students.
This was the message of the 2005 Trial Urban District
Assessment, conducted as part of the National Assessment of
Educational Progress.
In reading at both grades 4 and 8, the District finished
last among the 11 large cities, including the assessment most
disturbingly at fourth grade level for the two-thirds of
district students scored at below basic reading, compared with
an average of 51 percent for other large central cities and 38
percent for the Nation at a whole.
At the eighth grade level, scores improved somewhat but 55
percent of district students continued to read at below basic
compared to 40 percent average for large central cities and a
national average of 29 percent.
The Department has considerable insight into the
longstanding problems of the D.C. schools.
For several years, our audit reviews and program monitoring
business have documented fundamental grant management internal
control and procedural issues that make it very difficult to
ensure for either accountability for proper expenditure of
taxpayer funds or the appropriate delivery of services to
students.
Programs affected by these issues include title 1, the
foundation of Federal support for elementary and secondary
education, and programs authorized by the Individuals With
Disabilities Act, which was placed at a high risk status and
has been on that status for 5 years.
One of the main issues--and I know my time is running out,
so I am going to kind of summarize this--is that we see
weaknesses in how D.C. Manages itself as a State education
agency, as well as a local education agency.
We think this contributes to the difficulty in monitoring
and implementing the grants and ultimately students' success
that is to be generated from these Federal dollars. We stand
ready to help the D.C. public schools. I think Dr. Janey is a
knowledgeable, articulate, sincere individual who will, over
time, right this ship and show success in student learning
outcomes but it will take all of our efforts, including, the
high risk designation to get us where we need to go on behalf
of the boys and girls in this school system. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.012
Chairman Tom Davis. Dr. Janey.
STATEMENT OF CLIFFORD JANEY
Dr. Janey. Thank you very much, Chairman Davis,
Congresswoman Norton, Members sitting to my right and to my
left.
I am Clifford Janey, Superintendent of Schools of the
District of Columbia, and also serve as chief State school
officer.
What I would like to do is to highlight aspects of my
testimony and not advance it word for word and paragraph for
paragraph.
And I would like to begin and make reference to page 3 in
terms of one of the aims of this hearing is to have an update
as to where we are now compared to where we were last year.
And as such, I would just want to put this into the record.
The number of schools meeting adequate yearly progress in
both reading and mathematics has increased districtwide, going
from only 63 schools in school year 2003, 2004 to 72 schools in
last year, that is, 2004, 2005 school year.
At the elementary level, we have seen a number of schools
meeting these targets increase from 55 to 58 and at the
secondary level from 8 to 14.
In that same year of comparison, attendance increased from
85 to 89 percent districtwide.
Additionally, English language learners dramatically
improved their proficiency in both reading and math rising from
30.8 percent to 50.4 percent in reading, and from 50.8 percent
to 56.4 percent in mathematics.
Some other snapshots, and let's go to the national level,
it was entered into the record about DCPS being one of 11
districts on a trial basis in terms of its participation with
the National Assessment Educational Progress Initiative.
And we continue to fully participate in that effort.
While we, along with Atlanta and Chicago and some other
districts, represent the rear guard, there are points of
progress I would like to mention and enter into the record.
For example, the percentage of students scoring below basic
decreased 9 percent, and this is in fourth grade mathematics,
and the percent of students scoring proficient increased by 3
percent. Both of those increases were statistically
significant.
I would also like to point out that, which is not in my
testimony, there are some nuances that certainly can't be
couched in any form of an excuse, but should be factored into
the overall look at these points of progress for urban
districts participating in the NAEP. And that is our exclusion
rate for students in terms of participating in the NAEP of just
1 percent, and for example, when you look at the school
district of Houston, their exclusion rate for participation was
14 percent.
Again, it is a nuance that needs to be taken into
consideration in the big picture.
With respect to some of the other points of progress a
number of students taking AP courses increased from 818 to 832,
rather, and the number of students reporting 3, 4 or 5 on AP
exams increased from 531 to 549 with a 17 percent increase
among males alone.
We see some slight increases in the SAT, and again, it is
slight, but it gives you some sense of the angularity in terms
of moving in the right direction. We moved from 412 to 414.
But what was I think most I think accomplished in terms of
the needle moving in the right direction was the number of
students who took the PSAT, we increased it from 1 year to the
next by 1,500 students. And there is a correlation between
success on SAT and taking the PSAT.
With respect to some of the operational business systems
which was not captured by the Department of Education in their
reports, we have automated our procurement system.
We did that within a 6-month period of time, even though
the plan that we had initiated was initiated was over a longer
period of time, but the concentration of going fully automated
took us just 6 months. And now departments, schools, divisions,
can order whatever type of material, instructional, custodial,
educational, they can do that electronically and receive their
goods within a short period of time versus what used to be the
past practice.
I want to close and certainly welcome your questions and
the conversation that we will have this morning but also, I
want to enter on to the record the fact that we have
established in an unprecedented manner the development and
implementation of learning standards, which set the stage for
all of our students and all of our schools to be seen whole and
equal. We did such in record time.
Less than 2 years, we adopted with the acknowledgement,
support of the board of education, we adopted learning
standards in three subject areas, reading language arts,
mathematics and science, and most recently, this month before
the board of education and the public is a recommendation from
my office to adopt social study standards. And we are, as Henry
Johnson pointed out so well, entering into an experience
whereby our students, in all of our public schools, including
charter schools, are taken, for the very first time, a new
assessment which we developed and instituted in less than a
year and a half.
And with that, I would just like to close out in my
testimony and move to the next witness.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Janey follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.025
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you, Dr. Janey.
Mr. Musso.
STATEMENT OF JOHN MUSSO
Mr. Musso. Good morning, Chairman Davis, Congresswoman
Norton, members and guests my name is John Musso, and I am the
chief financial officer for the District of Columbia public
schools. I would like to thank you, first of all, for inviting
us here today so that we could briefly summarize some of the
financial operations and the success in our reform of the past
24 months.
We believe that Dr. Janey's educational reform objectives
can be achieved through a framework of sound comprehensive
system of internal controls. And those are some of the things I
would like to talk about today, just exactly what have we done
to strengthen those internal control mechanisms in the OCFO at
DCPS.
We have made substantial and tangible, as well as
demonstrable progress in financial accounting operations.
During fiscal year 2005, not only did we receive an
unqualified or a clean opinion on our annual comprehensive
financial statement, but we also effectively implemented past
corrective actions that eliminated all fiscal material weakness
and reportable conditions for the first time in many years.
Over the past 24 months, we have made a concerted effort to
strengthen all of our fiscal management accountability by
enhancing the internal controls.
Some of the following are examples of what we have done to
strengthen those. First of all, we needed to investigate and
evaluate the internal control mechanisms that were in place. We
added to those, we strengthened those, and we changed some of
them. We realize that it was essential that management monitor
control related issues on an ongoing basis.
We also realize that internal controls must be constantly
evaluated and tested on a day-to-day operations to ensure that
they are functioning properly.
We achieved 98 percent compliance with the quick payment
act. What this means is that 98 percent of our vendors are
being paid within a 30-day period. That leaves 2 percent.
The other 2 percent is made up of generally those
requisitions that lack the requisite demonstrated documentation
to justify the payment.
Those types of things we are trying to enforce with our
internal controls.
We also successfully calculated and paid more than $22
million in employee retroactive salary and step payments that
date as far back as 1998.
We successfully ended fiscal year 2005 with a balanced
budget and the surplus of $12,000, the fiscal year 2004 budget
with a balanced budget and a surplus of $1.2 million, and
fiscal year 2003 ended with a balanced budget and a surplus of
$37,000. We have collected more than $3 million in employee
salary overpayments from prior years. And we have instituted at
least 10 major policies to strengthen internal control
mechanisms throughout the school system.
Examples are travel policy, overtime policy, inventory and
asset and control policy.
I would also add that our external audit report contains
only three audit findings for fiscal year 2005 down 75 percent
from fiscal year 2003, none of which were in the area of fiscal
management. We have maintained a very high level of fiscal
transparency through the development of various budget reports
and other fiscal information as well as posting the same on our
newly created DCPS OCFO Web site.
There are also several things we have done that have
overarching effects on the total system. We have specifically
dedicated several individuals in the accounts payable position
just to special education payments. We have also been able to
identify nonpublic tuition pressures far enough in advance that
we are able to take care of those pressures within that fiscal
year.
And we have also been able to begin capturing the true cost
of that nonpublic education through accurately tracking those
expenses and payments.
We know that systemic change and reform is not implemented
over night. And we have been able to correct many things in the
DCPS OCFO office. We also realize that others will come after
us and in order to sustain that, we begin to memorialize those
things and those practices that have led to these successes.
I also believe that we will be able to sustain high level
fiscal integrity by maintaining the due diligence and strong
internal control mechanisms that we practice right now.
With reform advances made in our office as chief financial
officer and the aggressive reform efforts of Dr. Janey and his
team, I am convinced that DCPS can overcome any issues and meet
the needs and differences of every child every day. The DCPS
OCFO stands ready to serve Dr. Janey and his team and the
entire school system to lead them to a first class educational
system.
Mr. Chairman, once again, thank you for the opportunity to
briefly describe some of the achievements for the OCFO, and I
would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Musso follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.030
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Willoughby, thank you for being with us.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES WILLOUGHBY
Mr. Willoughby. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of
the committee. My name is Charles Willoughby. I am the
inspector general of the District of Columbia.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss issues that relate to the continuing efforts by the
District of Columbia to improve its public school system.
Many of these issues have become part of our audit agenda.
My testimony today will outline past audits that address
systemic deficiencies, summarize investigative matters and
address our commitment to a high priority on auditing school
operations that relate to financial and performance issues.
As you are well aware, the D.C. public schools spend an
excess of $1 billion annually and has one of the largest per
capita student expenditure ratios in the Nation. Of the more
than $1 billion spent on education programs, about 40 percent
of school funds come from State education assistance and
Federal grant programs.
While audit efforts have successfully identified lapses and
needed improvements in various programs, much remains to be
done to improve the delivery of vital education services and to
derive the greatest benefits from education resources.
In the past several years, my office has increasingly
devoted audit resources to address and emergent and
longstanding issues facing the District's education system.
These issues include special education, procurement and
contract administration, payroll, security and grants
management.
For example, approximately 5 years ago, our office issued a
detailed report on the costly scheduling methods used to
transport the District's special education students. While we
believe the current school administration is proactively
focused on revolving the myriad of problems facing DCPS and is
actively interested in our audit work, we believe that the
problems noted still exist to this day.
DCPS interests and our audit work was exemplified by the
superintendent's participation in our annual audit planning
conference. Most recently, my audit division is focused largely
on school security issues.
One of the more problematic issues facing schools across
the Nation is the difficult task of ensuring what is perhaps
most fundamental to the learning environment, student and
faculty safety and security.
Working with school officials, we have completed a series
of audits during the past few fiscal years that address school
security issues in areas such as the use of homeland security
funds, procurement and background and training of security
personnel.
The school security problems noted in our audits were
instrumental in part in the District developing a comprehensive
plan for school security.
The focus of the plan was to achieve involvement among the
DCPS security division, school principals and the MPD school
security division with respect to monitoring, controlling and
improving security within the schools.
The effectiveness of this new initiative as well as the
appropriate role of the MPD in school security remains
uncertain as the District continues to address the core issue
of how best to provide school security services.
Our past audits have identified systemic deficiencies in
several areas that include procurement and payroll. Examples
include awarding contracts without effective competition,
relying on faulty sole source justifications for contracts,
using an antiquated legacy payroll system that contributes to
many payroll problems and using significant amounts of overtime
in several labor categories where some individuals earn nearly
as much as their annual salary in overtime.
The District's Capital Improvement Program is of vital
importance of maintaining a healthy infrastructure and learning
environment throughout the school system. In addition, the
anticipated investment of about $700 million in school
renovations and new construction over the next few years
mandates that we maintain our oversight efforts in this area.
We recently issued an audit of the management of DCPS
capital projects. The audit examined the DCPS capital
construction program to assess the progress DCPS was making in
assuming capital school construction projects.
While DCPS's actions to take responsibility for managing
the CIP, or the Capital Improvement Program, are promising, we
do plan to develop audits in our fiscal year 2007 plan that
will evaluate various aspects of the CIP.
We continue our involvement in school security issues as
well as other DCPS issues covered in our ongoing and planned
audits. Some current DCPS ongoing and planned audits include
special education for foster children, management of overtime
pay in DCPS, tuition and residency requirements, followup
audits on procurement practices of DCPS, management of truancy
at DCPS and grant management practices.
With respect to investigations, the OIG investigations
division has conducted a broad range of criminal and
administrative investigations involving DCPS officials,
employees and contractors.
OIG plans to help mitigate plans risks has four main
components. First, creating a permanent audit site at DCPS,
continuing efforts to followup on past audit recommendations;
three, provide financial oversight through the comprehensive
annual financial report; and four, maintaining effective
working relationships and coordination with school officials
and leadership.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I take very seriously my
responsibility to use the resources of my office to continue to
perform independent assessments of DCPS operations to
ultimately resolve critical deficiencies.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this most
pressing and important issue. And I am happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Willoughby follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.041
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Jennings, thank you for being with
us.
STATEMENT OF CEDRIC JENNINGS
Mr. Jennings. Thank you, Chairman Davis, and all the
committee members and fellow panelists and guests. Thank you so
much for the opportunity to provide testimony of my experiences
as a former student of the District of Columbia public schools
system. Most people know me as the subject of the best selling
book, ``A Hope In The Unseen,'' an American odyssey from the
inner city to the Ivy League by Pulitzer Prize winning author
Mr. Ron Susskind.
Most people know me from ``A Hope In The Unseen,'' by Ron
Susskind. And the book chronicles my experiences growing up in
what is considered one of the most blighted sections of
southeast Washington, DC, having been a student in the District
of Columbia public schools and my college experiences as well.
And briefly, I would like to just highlight some of my
experiences as a student in D.C. public schools, as well as to
highlight some key moments in my college experiences and
institutions that worked together in moving me toward a path of
success.
As I travel in touring for ``A Hope In The Unseen,'' I am
met by educators who always ask the question of, are there more
Cedric Jenningses in schools? Can we create more Cedric
Jenningses in our schools, high achieving students, students
who are motivated, ready to excel. And each time I have gotten
this question I pondered in my mind, what does it mean, are
there more Cedric Jenningses. Or can we create more Cedric
Jenningses?
And I came to two realities. First reality is No. 1, I am
not an anomaly. First off, my story is very common among many
different people that I have encountered. They share with me
how much they can connect with my story because they shared the
same types of experiences having gone through a tough schooling
experience.
And then, second, the goal of schools, I realize, is not
necessarily to replicate me, the person, but to replicate those
institutions that actually worked in my favor as I journeyed
through my schooling experience.
Those institutions include the church, families, and
schools. And not just those institutions, individually, but
their interconnectedness in how they work. First off, in terms
of family, my mother, you know, O, for the love of a mother. My
mom's desire to motivate me to success came from her lack as a
child. She constantly asked me, what are your dreams? And I
would tell her my dreams and she would push me and say, baby,
reach for the stars, you can do anything you put your mind to.
But that question came from my mom from a deep place,
because as a child she was not asked the same question.
And so, moving forward, when she decided to give birth to
me, at the reject of my father who basically told her he would
sever ties with her if she did so, she had made up in her mind
that she was going to be unselfish in moving me toward success
by enforcing the power of education as well as the power of
spirituality.
And my mom, when she gave birth to me, basically, she was
in a downward spiral of her life where she became involved in
the Apostolic church. We have long been members of the
scripture Cathedral where pastor Bishop Long and the church has
essentially provided us with a sense of morals, a sense of
order, a sense of dignity and a sense of pride in who we are in
that we might have gone through difficult times, living in a
tough community with mom struggling to make ends meet, but at
the same time, the church helped us to understand that we could
think beyond the circumstance and think toward the future.
The church is important in terms of pastors being father
figures. Bishop Long has always been a father figure to me. And
he has helped guide me through the tough times I faced in the
public school system of Washington, DC.
My elementary schools experiences, I have fond memories of
those as I remember there being a sense of community, a sense
of love, a sense of intimacy, even between students, parents
and faculty.
And, I remember the students all sharing the same desire to
be successful. And it was not a crime to have that sort of
thinking.
And when I graduated from Ketchum Elementary School, I felt
that I could conquer the world and compete in any environment.
I went on to Jefferson Middle school where, at that time, the
principal was Ms. Vera White, and when we talk about solutions
in terms of leadership, for those of us who know Vera White,
she is--for me she was an example of exemplary leadership when
it came to creating an environment where an ethos of success
was created amongst the students in the student body as well as
amongst teachers in the community.
I went on to Ballou High School where I was faced with the
reality of what a tough inner city school really meant in terms
of the low expectations, the violence, the crime, even within
schools. I have always been brought up to look at schools as
sanctuaries. It is where you go and you partake in the process
of learning.
And as you partake in the process of learning, you are able
to build upon dreams. And so I always saw school as just that
thing. And it was discouraging to me at the onset when I first
began at Ballou, to be in an environment where that same shared
desire to be successful and to do well in the world wasn't as
prevalent as it was in previous school settings.
And it became very discouraging for me in that I was one of
the few honor students at Ballou who expressed great pride in
success and in doing well. And I experienced such criticism
from classmates because it was not cool to be proud of success.
The idea was keep your head down. Don't speak of your success.
And I was one who had lofty ambitions and dreams. And I
wasn't willing to allow anybody to shut me down because you
know they didn't share the same level of motivation.
And I was accused of trying to be white, thinking that I
was better, I have been called nerd, egghead, you name it, but
the bottom line was, I went to school daily with a dream, with
a purpose to excel.
And I had planned on go to an Ivy league institution. And
one of the teachers at Ballou I will never forget when I told
him of this dream, he told me, I don't think you can make it to
the Ivy league, we haven't had a student go on to the Ivy
league in 10 years.
And so each obstacle I faced as such, I basically looked at
it as an opportunity to become more motivated, to reach toward
my goals. I graduated from Ballou in 1995, second in my class.
I went on to attend Brown University. I graduated in 1999 with
a degree in educational studies.
I went on to the Harvard graduate school of education where
I received my master of education in human development and
psychology. And then I went on to University of Michigan in Ann
Arbor, to where I earned my master of social work. Currently, I
am a social worker for the D.C. Child and Family Services
Agency. And I am thankful for the opportunity to be here and to
answer any questions in more detail of the experiences I have
had.
Chairman Tom Davis. Cedric, thank you very much for that.
And he came home. You have just given back and thank you for
sharing that with us today.
I have a number of questions we are going to go through, I
am going to do 15 minutes, try to get my questions in, and Ms.
Norton will take a few minutes longer and then we will let you
get on your way.
But this is an important question.
Ever since I was named chairman of the subcommittee back in
1995, and Ms. Norton has been my comrade in arms in this thing,
a lot of changes have gone on in the city. And as I said in my
opening statement, great things are happening.
And the school system has been the toughest nut to crack.
We have had a lot of good people trying to tackle this issue.
Dr. Janey, I can't tell you how much respect we have for you
that you took this on because they went out all over the
country to look for people, and they came in and took a look at
the situation and walked away from it.
And this is tough. And nobody is sitting here blaming you
for what has been years in the making.
You are up there trying. We want to make sure at the end of
this that between Congress, between the Department of
Education, your tools, that we give you the tools that you need
to succeed. As you know, we have given the city tools that we
have given no other city in the country with vouchers the
charter schools, and some other things. And I know you are
looking outside the box in a lot of other areas.
It is a tough, tough job.
But this city is truly not going to come back until we get
an educational system and we produce more Cedric Jenningses.
The good news is the number of kids from the D.C. public
schools that are going on to college has increased markedly,
part of that is, I think, we have made college affordable, Ms.
Norton with our proposals.
But it is a very tough job, as you know, to getting kids
motivated, getting them through Ballou with high dreams and
ambitions and making them realize that. And it is good to have
you here. It is a good role model for other kids knowing it can
be done. But sometimes they are fighting the system. The system
is not pushing them through it.
Out in my district in Fairfax County, it is pushing them
through. It is cool if you are not studying in some places. And
we have to change that. It is slowly, slowly changing.
First question I want to ask you, Secretary Johnson, Ms.
Norton in her opening comment talked about why you had singled
out territories and you had not gone after people with
Senators, is that because you deal with the District
differently because it is not a State and you have a,
overseeing it in other areas, it would be handled differently
through State government? How come the city is singled out
here?
We know there are failing systems in cities throughout the
country as bad or worse.
Mr. Johnson. The primary form of contact for the Federal
Government regarding education is through the State. D.C. has a
unique role of being both a State education agency and a local
education agency.
In those cases where recipients of Federal funds, D.C., and
some of those territories, have not demonstrated the ability to
manage the grants as well as they should be managed, the
Department takes appropriate steps.
Chairman Tom Davis. So what would you do with a State that
doesn't do it correctly, same thing?
Mr. Johnson. Absolutely.
Chairman Tom Davis. But you haven't had that same problem
with the States that you have with the city?
Mr. Johnson. Not so far.
Chairman Tom Davis. OK.
Mr. Johnson. Working with the State of Louisiana, for
example, though, which has decided to place Orleans Parish in
its own categorization of high risk, we are assisting them. But
we don't make a direct entree to entities other than those that
receive Federal funds directly.
Chairman Tom Davis. Is it fair to say, I mean, I know that
the per people expenditure in the city is far greater than it
is, for example, out in my district in Prince William and
Fairfax County, VA. It is a different model altogether. But the
problems I gather in the city are not just financial related,
is that correct?
Mr. Johnson. That's correct.
Chairman Tom Davis. Could you elaborate on that a little
bit? Because I think we need to understand that money at this
point, just putting money into a system that is not prepared to
spend it correctly, account for it correctly, has its own
problems. And we are talking about a systematic change, not
just financial. Is that fair?
Mr. Johnson. That's correct. The bottom line on any Federal
entree is to improve teaching and learning.
And the grants, whether they are discretionary or formula,
are based on trying to get an improvement in student learning
outcomes.
While there has been some improvement in D.C., compared to
some of the other similar districts around the State, the
numbers don't look as good. And we want to help rectify that
situation.
Chairman Tom Davis. What are you prepared to do to help the
city?
Mr. Johnson. Well, we are doing prepared things or prepared
to do several things. I mentioned the money piece and I won't
repeat those. But we are----
Chairman Tom Davis. It is OK, Dr. Janey is writing it down.
Mr. Johnson. Well, again the Department of Ed has already
provided $1.9 million to support the elementary secondary ed.
In addition, the additional $40 million for school improvement,
and the finances financing for the opportunity scholarship
program, we want to provide significant technical assistance
and services.
In helping to develop strategic corrective action plans
planning, we will customize the training for grantee leadership
and staff to make sure that the fiscal management in internal
controls for grant management is appropriate.
We will bring together resources from other agencies and
third party vendors. We will provide expert technical
assistance and program advice for developing State plans. And
we have already worked with them in----
Chairman Tom Davis. Dr. Janey are those things likely to
help you, do you think they will help you significantly?
Dr. Janey. They can be helpful if it is focused, it is
consistent, and it has in its efforts the ability for
measurable outcomes.
Chairman Tom Davis. Would you move that mic closer?
Dr. Janey. I said it could be helpful if the effort is
focused, it is consistent, and it is truly collaborative.
Chairman Tom Davis. What else would you ask the Federal
Government? What is the most important things the Federal
Government can do for you right now in addition to those
things? If you were to sit here and have a conversation, I am
asking you.
Dr. Janey. A couple of things. One, in cases where we need
to be out of the way, be out of the way. On the other side of
the ledger though, they could provide us with examples of
demonstrated best practices in other States and how, while they
may not have been in a high-risk designation, but all States
have some issues. So let's be clear about that. But more
importantly, how they work with other States, having identified
issues, whether they be in financial management, oversight of
grants to LEA's within their respective jurisdictions, how they
overcame becoming a high-risk designation as a State. So what
was done on a preventative basis so that you didn't move to
that next status? And what are you doing on an ongoing basis?
And how do you measure success on that side?
Chairman Tom Davis. Secretary Johnson, can we do those
kinds of things as well?
Mr. Johnson. Absolutely.
Chairman Tom Davis. Is there anything else you would like
to get from the Federal Government that would help you fulfill
some of your plans for the system?
Dr. Janey. Yes.
Chairman Tom Davis. I have them under oath here.
Dr. Janey. Some plain talk, Congressman, some plain talk
about where we are in comparison to other States in assuming
and following through on our responsibility to develop learning
standards and the appropriate assessments. I have felt that we
have not been given the kind of recognition and acknowledgment
for the work that we are doing in that area.
Chairman Tom Davis. Let me ask a question, comparing you to
a State in many ways isn't a fair comparison, and I do not want
to tread on that, but you do not have the very tax base. This
city, the wealthiest areas, most of the kids, they do not go to
the public schools; they go to a private school. So when you
take a look at the makeup of the public school system and the
income levels, the number of people that are going home to
educated parents, those kind of issues, this city is far
different than any State, isn't it? In terms of demographics,
not different from other cities but different from other
States. Is that a fair comment?
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Chairman Tom Davis. When you compare the city to States,
that gives it a tougher road to begin with. I think Mr.
Jennings talks about how he worked his way through that, but
without a strong base at home or belief, Cedric, it would have
been very difficult would it not, because you do not pick that
up systemwide and know a lot of the kids you go to school with,
they are going home and they are not getting that kind of
reenforcement; is that fair?
Mr. Jennings. I would have to agree with that. I think a
part of it is, it is important that schools become better at
engaging parents and making them a part of the process. And I
guess the start with that is through accountability of parents.
I mean, it is easier said than done, but for the most part, it
was interesting to go to parent-teacher conferences with my
mom, and there is a school of 1,300 kids and only about 30
parents show up for the PTA meeting. And usually those were the
parents that didn't need to come because their kids were
already getting A's. So that to me is an example of the need to
come up with more creative ways in terms of engaging parents,
engaging them to become more active in their children's
education, making them feel relevant in doing that.
Chairman Tom Davis. One of the problems of No Child Left
Behind is, generally, if a school does not fulfill its goals,
you give parents the option to send their kids other places.
And our experience has been at Fairfax that it is the parents
who are on top of things with the brightest kids that pull
their kids out of the school which makes it even harder for
that school to succeed because you have taken some of the core
kids out. But I think that is a good insight on that.
I think our auditors and the financial systems and all
those kinds of things are issues that we cannot solve from
here. Dr. Janey, this will take a lot of time. It may mean you
have to move some people around, bring some more people in,
whatever you have to do to do those kind of things. You have to
get that. You have to start with a good system and good
accountability, but once you get that, we still have a tough
problem. I just heard the Department of Education say they are
here to work with you on some of the best practices that we
have learned through time. We also cannot expect this to work
in a year. This is going to take some time.
One of the concerns I think Ms. Norton and I both have is,
when this city gets singled out and the way that we all learn
about it is that somehow it is going to be a black eye for
people who are trying and helping to improve this system every
year. And I do not want everyone to leave with that impression
that Dr. Janey isn't doing his job. And this is a long-term
process. And this should be, by putting them on the list, this
should be a helpful opportunity. This is just saying you need
help. He knows he needs help. Let's work through this thing and
work it. This city is a great city. And it can become a greater
city but the toughest part has traditionally been the education
system. And you have a tough group of kids to learn.
My mom and dad both went to college. My father was a Ph.D.,
even though my mother basically brought us up, five kids. My
father ended up spending a couple tours in the State prison
system. I had an educated mother, and she made it very clear to
us that education was the key to success. Most of these kids do
not have that. We tried here with our D.C. College Access Act
and some other things to let people know that it can be
affordable, but the best of these things is done with some of
these subtle things and best practices, like you say, by
bringing good people in.
I had a young lady who volunteered in my first campaign in
1974. She just graduated from high school. She went to Yale,
graduated from there and came back to teach in the D.C. public
school system. She would have spent her life there if she
thought she was making a difference, but it just got very
discouraging. So she went out and became a lawyer. She wanted
it to work, but it was a system that was not ready to take some
of these wide-eyed, bushy-tailed, eager, talented people and
make it work. So that is our challenge as we move through this.
Oversight and supervision are two important issues when
dealing with government. Is there proper supervision of the
D.C. school system? What more needs to be done that may not
require funding? Can you think of anything else, Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, let me, if I may, make a couple
of comments about your last statement just briefly and then I
will ask Mr. La Force who is senior counsel to the Secretary
who is responsible for risk management efforts in the
Department to comment as he sees fit.
I came to the Department in August and very shortly
thereafter was involved in a meeting regarding D.C., and as we
worked through internally our conversations and also
conversations with representatives from the District, it became
clear to us that Superintendent Janey is a very competent
superintendent. In considering to take this move to designate
D.C. as a high-risk district, we wanted to make absolutely
clear that this is not about Superintendent Janey. This is not
about him at all. We think highly of his ability, and we think
that this actually will help him do the things that are
necessary to get D.C. where it needs to be.
Chairman Tom Davis. Dr. Janey, D.C. public school systems
have an extremely complex task of serving as the State
education agency, providing oversight and guidance to all
schools as well as a local education agency acting as an
education body within the District. Can you tell us some of the
safeguards that you put in place in order to ensure that there
is a comfortable and efficient distinction between the
oversight functions and the local education functions? Do you
understand what I am saying? How do your staffing patterns
reflect this? There are really two different skill sets.
Dr. Janey. Precisely. There are two different sets of
skills, and distinguishing between the two roles is a very
important aspect of how we build our budget. For example, in
the budget process for fiscal year 2007, we made a very
deliberate attempt to distinguish what would be State dedicated
dollars and local dedicated dollars, and the individuals
responsible for crafting recommendations for both budgets were
doing so in ways that represented their very distinct roles. It
was not a blur. So we have done that. We have put together a
State advisory committee overseeing the receipt and execution
and monitoring of our Federal grants.
I am contemplating developing a new position within the
State organization that would be a deputy for me at the State
level. And this person would be dedicated to State functions
100 percent of the time. So it would be a deputy to the chief
State school officer role that I have, knowing that I have both
responsibilities, but this person would have 100 percent
responsibility as a deputy chief to me.
Chairman Tom Davis. Did I cut you off the last time? Do you
want to say anything else?
Mr. La Force. It is OK, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Dr. Janey, in the declaration of
education, you included plans to implement a diverse provider
model as a means of turning around achievement in the
District's lowest performing schools. The public school system
would be able to enter a collaborative partnership with an
array of outside educational providers such as universities,
private companies and established community-based institution
which would manage or provide comprehensive achievement support
to these schools. How do you feel about that? Have you taken
any steps to implement that?
Dr. Janey. Yes, Georgetown University has stepped up,
adopted one of our middle schools, and they will be moving to
see how that plays out from pre-K through 12 as the plan
unfolds. George Washington has been a very good partner with
us. As you have been reading articles in one of the papers here
in Washington, there is an intent to explore a relationship
with Kipp academy, so we have a pre-K through 8 model. We have,
on the business side of the house, we have been retaining the
support and service of various outside providers in helping us
maintain and grow our capacity for oversight of construction
projects. We most recently had the responsibility of
modernizing Brightwood Elementary School. It is our first
oversight responsibility for modernization, and we are pleased
to say we came in at $181 per square foot, and the average for
the Army Corps of Engineers during their tenure here was about
$286 per square foot. So there is some demonstration about our
capacity to manage and to do it efficiently.
Chairman Tom Davis. You still have, though, overall, very
aging school public facilities; is that correct?
Dr. Janey. Big time.
Chairman Tom Davis. I understand there is still a
significant number of noncredentialed teachers in D.C. public
schools. Do you have any idea what percentage of teachers are
in this category? And do you have any plans to audit the
teacher rolls to identify noncredentialed teachers, requiring
them to get their credentials? And the last question I want to
ask is, are you having trouble attracting good new teachers
into this system? I know the teacher pool 20 years ago in
Fairfax and I think around the country is, there was a long
waiting list of people to do that. Now I know it has tightened
up in the suburbs, and I assume it has gotten tight here to
attract good people.
Dr. Janey. Interestingly enough, Congressman, we have not
had any real difficulty attracting quality teachers. It is more
about attracting quality teachers in particular subject areas,
special education, mathematics and science. And as a State and
a school district, we are not alone. That is common to Fairfax.
That is common to some of our other partner regional districts
within the overall area. But on the subject of certification,
it is something that we take very seriously. We do not presume,
however, that certification automatically correlates with
quality. We do, however, make the presumption that you have to
have that in order for you to be serving our children. But
certification broken down has to be understood both with
respect to competency in your subject area and certainly
competency and a heartfelt kind of welcoming way by which you
are going to teach our students. If you are a person
responsible for teaching students in the area of mathematics,
not teaching mathematics, some teachers quickly say, I teach
math, I teach science, I teach a subject. No, you are teaching
students about the world of mathematics, and your approach to
such has to understand that the nurturing environment and the
culture of your classroom is important.
So we have about 600 to 700 teachers who are not highly
qualified, and we have been monitoring this throughout the
school year. And we have entered a major and robust recruitment
effort and have partnered with a group, an outside group, to
assist us in that recruitment effort. So we are partnering with
people whether it is in construction, whether it is with higher
education with private companies. We are also doing that in the
area of human resources.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Dr. Janey.
It is curious, Mr. Johnson, you are saying this is not
about Dr. Janey. Of course it is not about Dr. Janey, except it
has occurred on Dr. Janey's watch. Are you aware, sir, that the
District of Columbia, each and every part of the District of
Columbia was under a control board because of the classrooms of
the District government? If I might ask if you are so anxious
to declare high-risk, how in the world did the Department of
Education miss that one?
Mr. Johnson. I am not familiar with what you are talking
about, but my presumption is those other things are outside the
responsibilities of the Department of Ed. This focus is only on
the educational aspect of the District of Columbia.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Johnson, that was a rhetorical question.
But let me say that the question involved matters decidedly
within the Department of Education because the D.C. government
collapsed. As a result of that collapse, the schools and most
especially the schools and every other part of the government
was in the hands of a control board. Even then, the District of
Columbia Public Schools were not declared at-risk. So I am
trying to find out what at-risk means.
First of all, are you aware, since this is not about Dr.
Janey, that this is his first full year on the job?
Dr. Janey. Second.
Ms. Norton. Well, when you came in the last school year in
the fall, schools had already begun and the matters were
already on their way. And so I repeat my question, are you
aware that this is his first full year on the job where he had
an opportunity during the prior year to have an effect upon
this year? Are you aware of that?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, we are aware of that.
Ms. Norton. Yet this is not about Dr. Janey. Again, as you
say, I take no brief for these schools or any part of the
government that fails. But you have to make me understand high-
risk category. Before I came to Congress, I was a tenured
professor of law, and law students have to take care of
themselves. They do not have a lot of warning. They have exams
at the end of the year. Plop. That is it. However, one wonders
about--indeed, my question is, what are the designations since
high-risk is the most serious designation a school system can
get? I must ask you what is the designation before high-risk
and whether or not D.C. was given that designation so it could
have some warning that you are going to be put in high-risk if
in fact you do not correct the following items?
Mr. La Force. Ms. Norton, there is no designation that
precedes high-risk in our regulations. The high-risk
designation is based on five criteria that are part of our
Department's regulations, three of which we think apply in this
case. The first is that the grantee has a history of
unsatisfactory performance that goes both to financial
performance and performance in the grantees Federal programs.
The second is that the grantee has a management system which
does not meet the management standards set forth in our
regulations, and finally, that the grantee has not conformed to
the terms and conditions of our grant. Those are technical
requirements.
But I would also like to review for the committee, if I
may, the timeline under which we have been working as we made
this decision. The Department has a dedicated group of
employees that we refer to as the risk management team. This is
the group of employees that is charged with working with any of
our grantees, State level grantees, that would be identified as
high-risk. In August of last year, in August 2005----
Ms. Norton. Stop. That would be, that are already defined
as high-risk.
Mr. La Force. That are already or may be.
Ms. Norton. Did those members of the Department notify and
work with the D.C. public schools, and specifically what did
that work consist of?
Mr. La Force. In August 2005, we had an initial meeting
with Dr. Janey and other members of his staff to begin
introducing what we would refer to as a collaborative
partnership-based working relationship in an effort to address
our concerns with the District. This is a practice that we have
engaged in with other States in the country, and it is an
effort on our part to voice the high-risk designation.
Ms. Norton. Was Dr. Janey informed that a high-risk
designation would follow unless certain matters were in fact
corrected, and was he informed what those matters were that had
to be corrected?
Mr. La Force. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Was he informed that a high-risk designation
would in fact follow if those particular matters were not
corrected?
Mr. La Force. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Dr. Janey, do you recall a meeting where you
were informed that you were in danger of a high-risk
designation?
Dr. Janey. Yes, I do, and the date for that meeting was
February 15, 2006.
Mr. La Force. On October 27th, a member of our risk
management team informed a member of Dr. Janey's staff we were
interested in continuing the discussions that we had in August,
and I am reading----
Ms. Norton. Informed his staff of what?
Mr. La Force. I'm sorry.
Ms. Norton. Informed his staff of what? You have stopped.
You fill in the blank. You informed a member in October, you
informed a member of Dr. Janey's staff, and who was that, and
of what?
Mr. La Force. We sent by e-mail to Dr. Bob Rice an
invitation to continue the discussions that we had started in
August.
Ms. Norton. That is not informing him of anything.
Mr. La Force. May I quote from the e-mail, Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. That is what I would like you to do.
Mr. La Force. ``As I think you know, the U.S. Department of
Education intends this cooperative effort between our agencies
to prevent the assignment of DCPS to high-risk status, as well
as an effort by the U.S. Department of Education to help DCPS
achieve its academic goals for its students.''
On November 18th, another member of the risk management
team wrote a letter addressed to Dr. Janey, in part, ``If we do
not receive an appropriate response to the audit findings, we
will have to consider the recovery of funds and other steps,
including designating DCPS as a high-risk grantee and attach
further special----
Ms. Norton. Audit finding for what year?
Mr. La Force. These were audit findings related to fiscal
years 2002, 2003, which at the time were the subject of ongoing
discussions with the District in an effort to correct the audit
findings from these years which had not been corrected.
Ms. Norton. So those of course were years prior to Dr.
Janey's years.
Mr. La Force. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Musso, were you aware of this request about
years prior to the superintendent coming here and the request
of the Department for correcting those audit findings?
Mr. Musso. We received a copy of the request. We formulated
our response and forwarded our responses on.
Ms. Norton. And your response--that response was directed
to you? That response came from you, excuse me.
Mr. Musso. Right. The response relative to the OCFO issues
and how we would correct those.
Ms. Norton. You received that response or not?
Mr. La Force. We received that response on February 10th of
this year, approximately 3 months after the due date.
Ms. Norton. Oh my. You found that response so inadequate
that you believed you had to move to declare D.C. in high-risk
status.
Mr. La Force. The response to those audit findings was one
component, part of a number of findings that we have made both
through audit reviews and program reviews. Yes, we found them
in toto to be inadequate.
Ms. Norton. So your testimony here today is that you have
found D.C., you have designated D.C. in high-risk status
because you had no alternative; D.C. was uncooperative and
unresponsive, and therefore you felt you had to move to this
most serious category.
Mr. La Force. We are designating D.C., DCPS as high-risk
because we are deeply concerned that the system continue the
progress it has begun. As we have discussed, different members
of the panel have testified today, I think we all share a
common goal of making sure that DCPS is performing at its best
for the benefit of its students. Today we have concerns that
the District has not addressed all of the challenges that face
it. We also have concerns about its ability to address all of
those challenges in the future.
Ms. Norton. What is your concern about its ability to
address those challenges in the future on this superintendent's
watch?
Mr. La Force. We have a great deal of respect for Dr. Janey
for his experience and for the job that he is doing in the
District today. However----
Ms. Norton. You have concerns about the future. What are
your concerns about the future so he knows what he has to do?
Mr. La Force. In the simplest terms possible, we believe
that the District is facing more challenges, more problems than
it has problem solvers. Chairman Davis asked a very interesting
question in his comments about the capability of D.C. as an SEA
and its role as an SEA, and we think that is a very important
part of this, that the SEA component of the District buildup
its capability. We have concerns about the District's ability
to manage its Federal grants. We have concerns about the
District's ability to continue to make progress in an
environment of ongoing budget challenges and in an environment
where student achievement expectation will continue to rise
year after year.
Ms. Norton. What these three unfortunate jurisdictions have
in common, of course, is that they are treated like a State,
and they do not have the mechanisms or the resources of a
State. It apparently has not occurred to the Department of
Education that was at the root of the problem, that if you
wanted to help the District, the problem was structural, and
therefore one probably was not dealing only with the District;
that one was probably dealing with the only superstructure that
the District has, and that is the D.C. government.
Dr. Janey, who designated--D.C. has not always had this
separate designation in the form we see it today of a State
education and city, and yet I think that was actually
memorialized with separate personnel and all in a way that I do
not recall having been the case in the past. Is that true?
Dr. Janey. I am not familiar with the actual date at which
the designation occurred, meaning State and local. I am just
not familiar.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Willoughby, are you aware what I am talking
about? I mean, D.C. handled all of these together.
Mr. Willoughby. Exactly, I am not sure of the date either.
We do not have it.
Ms. Norton. Now I know that certain programs which Mr.
Johnson has attributed to the school system are handled
essentially out of the State education department. For example,
our TAG program, our program for television access, Dr. Janey
does not have anything to do with that. They might be Federal
funds. I do not think he has anything to do with these voucher
funds.
Mr. Willoughby. The only thing I can add is that I thought
it was somehow connected with Federal funding for the school
system, and it was required that this State entity be
established or created, but I cannot give you a definite
timeframe or date.
Ms. Norton. So what we have again if one were, if the
Department of Education stood back and said, would you--how
come we are seeing these problems in these three areas that
have no State? And yet I have heard nothing from Mr. Hudson or
Mr. La Force, I'm sorry, or Mr. Johnson about structural
changes which clearly have raised themselves in a systemic way
in these three Stateless jurisdictions. Why not? Why are you
not helping with the structural matter? Do you believe, for
example, that grants should be handled by the D.C. government,
some other part of the D.C. government, or have you any
experience--Dr. Janey talked about best practices--from the
States other than you are not managing your money well? Your
scores in your first year, you have not brought up. Shame on
you. Other than that, kind of across-the-board criticism, have
you done the analytical work with these three jurisdictions who
share in common the absence of a State apparatus which surely
sorts out much of this for my good colleague Bob from
Baltimore? If they are not--this is a jurisdiction in much
worse shape in some ways than we are, but they have a State
superstructure. They have State funds coming from special
education and the rest that they do not have. They have
something going for them, and it sounds to me, knowing nothing
but having some analytical ability, as if I put two and two
together and I say the Virgin Islands, Guam, Samoa and the
District of Columbia, what comes out is no State
superstructure. So if we have a role to play, Department of
Education, it is helping these jurisdictions without a State,
these State school districts without a State to relate to, a
government, the government that they relate to as a State in
our case, it would be the District of Columbia government. So I
have to ask you, have you been in touch with anybody in the
District of Columbia government?
Mr. La Force. Ms. Norton, your analysis is correct. There
is a common feature between the jurisdictions that have been on
high-risk, and that is that they, in most cases, what we refer
to as a unitary system where the State and the district are the
same. It is something that we have identified and in our
meeting with Dr. Janey and his staff later today. It is on the
very top of my personal to do list to address that issue with
the District. As Dr. Johnson referenced in his testimony this
morning, we believe that issue to be one of the most important
issues we address together as we go forward. Our recommendation
to Dr. Janey will be that we begin building a state-type
organization within his control.
Ms. Norton. Well, would it be within his control? I am not
asking that it not be within his control. But that is
interesting. Is it within the control of the superintendent of
the city of Baltimore, if we are talking about the State
apparatus or the State of Maryland? I mean, this is more
complicated than that, sir, is what I am saying. I do not know
what this is. It is an interesting intellectual and management
problem. This superintendent wants to make sure that what he is
accountable for coming under his jurisdiction. At the same
time, if you mix these functions so that there is nobody who
has true oversight, thank goodness for Mr. Willoughby, and he
has certainly done his job, but essentially, what you have here
and what seems to me important to recognize is, you do not have
an objective State agency like the State of Maryland or the
State of Virginia which will pull the chains of Fairfax County
or Baltimore and say, you know what, you are not going to get
this State in trouble so this is what you have to do. D.C. has
tried to create that, and it does seem to me that if one tries
to probe, what could possibly be at stake here, that the root
of the problem may be this oversight problem, the mixture of
function, the mixture of oversight and the failure, therefore,
to have some independent arbiter except for the auditor who
looks like he is over-worked with looking at various parts of
D.C. public schools that happen to be thrown over the transom
to him to look at. I say all of this because I told you I
approach this with a presumption of it is D.C. public schools
that needs to be fixed, but with real skepticism that somehow
the public schools of the great cities of the United States,
which are all finally pulling themselves up by their
bootstraps, that have had superintendents for longer than a
year who probably would not have been told, we want to see a
10-point increase in this and a 20-point increase in that in
your first year, so I cannot believe therefore that anything is
at work here except something that is truly distinctive.
So I am going to have to ask you, because I think the
superintendent is quite capable of doing what he is doing, and
I think given the amount of time and the nature of the school
system, that he is probably going to do that. If you could be
helpful to us in any way, it seems to me at that meeting should
not only be, from this meeting, that these ongoing set of
meetings should not only be Dr. Janey. It should be somebody
from the city government who would have an interest in this
State function beyond these State oversight functions we have
now so that the D.C. government can be informed. The D.C.
government has to take responsibility for this. You are talking
about a school system where the CFO does not even report to the
superintendent. And yet all of this is being laid on his table.
We have to just aggregate this, not to relieve him of
responsibility but to have a clearer set of functions so that
those functions are better understood.
I would like, Dr. Janey, as I said in my opening remarks,
that we wondered whether we could get a superintendent. This
place where people like to come and show their stuff normally.
But there have been actings and mishaps, and so we thought we
were in real trouble. So Dr. Janey didn't have to do what the
average superintendent has to do; all of them are quite
extraordinary people to take on these tasks. What he had to do
was not raise the scores, Dr. Janey. His portfolio is awesome,
and I would like him to lay out, beginning with facilities,
what is on his plate to fix so that we have an understanding of
what we mean by reform of the D.C. public schools and we begin
with your management plan which begins with curriculum that,
sir, is to be fully implemented beginning next year. How would
you feel, you are a superintendent, you have had to do your due
diligence you had to go to your school board, your council,
some of it has been implemented now. Where is my paper? But
parts of it in 2005, 2006, implementation is going to start in
the 2006/2007 school year. And that is of his master education
plan. And you are telling us here this morning that part of the
indictment has to do with education issues. Well, thank you
very much. I guess so. What he had to do was to make sure that
he had on board his board, his residents. Let me ask him what
he is about to do.
You have drawn the master plan the master education plan.
You have gotten it approved by your board. Implementation, full
implementation as I understand it starts at 2006/2007 and that
more changes will come through the next 2 or 3 years. I hope
that is the way in which he is doing it. Because if he throws
this at our school system, he will be throwing it on the
grounds. You would think if he does that, we ought to clap and
say, well done, and that is it. But I want him to lay out the
rest of what has to be done by him at the same time.
Go ahead, Dr. Janey.
Dr. Janey. We will have to hire over 600 teachers. We will
reduce the excess space in the school district by 1 million
square feet by the last week in August. We will hire probably
up to 20 or so principals. Last year, we had a churn of 44 from
one year to the next. We will have to address the modernization
of our buildings. On average, they are above 63 years of age. A
case study might be Cardoza which was built without a
gymnasium. Some luminary advanced that architectural plan and
constructed a building without a gymnasium. Cardoza, among
other high schools, has the cruel task of making a decision to
keep their air conditioning on, their lighting on, or turn on
the computers because of the fragility of the electrical
system. It is inadequate with respect to the amperage, and it
is inadequate with respect to the voltage. That has a direct
impact on teaching and learning and on the opportunity to
fairly respect all of our students regardless of where they
have lived, regardless of ethnicity and income. It is a very
daunting proposition. We can do it. It requires, however, full
recognition of all of the points of progress we have made.
We sit in a very unique situation as a State where we have
one out of every fifth child attending a charter school, and
those charter schools do not have the same kind of robust
accountability that we have within our own LEA. That is DCPS.
And finally, I would just say quickly, giving recognition
to the independent auditors report dated January 19, 2006, ``In
our opinion, the schedule presents fairly in all material
respects the original budget, final budget, actual revenues,
expenditures and other sources for uses of DCPS which represent
a portion of the District of Columbia's General Fund and
Federal and Private Resources Fund for the year ending
September 30, 2005, in conformity with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America.''
I would have, for this record, welcomed and entertained an
opportunity to prevent this high-risk designation by looking at
what precise steps we would have had to commit to and
demonstrate at a level of acceptability so it would conform to
what we all understand is progressive discipline. On an
individual basis, we could have done this organizationally
between whatever point in time and prior to the actual
designation. But that is after-the-fact conversation.
Ms. Norton. Indeed, I will make a request that, Mr. Johnson
and Mr. La Force and the Department of Education, that a more
definite and perhaps even intermediary step or designation be
considered by the Department. These schools I indicated in the
beginning that I do not think you should shy away from exactly
what you are doing. But how you do things can affect whether or
not school systems like this are going to be able to get
anybody to be able to come and do what Dr. Janey, who had a
very substantial career and apparently has the full confidence
of some tough cookies in the city. This is an election year.
And we are not going to be able to do it if one moves to high-
risk. You will get some e-mails, and I hope you all get the
point and here it comes.
I would ask the Department to consider that some
designation short of that might be helpful and some breakdown
in very specific terms might be helpful, particularly if you
are talking about school systems which on their face might have
the same kind of call on resources. If you are in Baltimore and
you get this kind of trouble, you go to Maryland and say, you
help us. Or if you are in Maryland and you get this kind of
word from the Department of Education, you go to Baltimore and
say, you all come on in. We have experts. We have money. We are
not going to let this happen to the State.
I would suggest, given the jurisdictions that seem to have
been alone and being caught here, that we understand something
from that is structural, and that is the kind of help that the
District needs.
I have a few more questions. I was certainly, I certainly
didn't understand what kind of technical assistance or
resources were available here. It is one thing to call in
people and tell them what they are doing wrong, and it is one
thing to tell me all the Federal funds we receive, a lot of
which are not even under Dr. Janey's jurisdiction; it is
another thing to have a true program for technical assistance
where you sit down and you do some of the things that Dr. Janey
has indicated like, here are the best practices and here is
what we suggest, particularly when you are dealing with a
school system that does not have State experts who might play
that role. So I am going to ask that kind of technical
assistance be provided, too. I want to ask you, Mr. Johnson,
are you aware of the fact that the District, that the
District's auditor is placing a permanent site at the D.C.
public schools, an onsite outside auditor?
Mr. Johnson. No.
Mr. Willoughby. No, just to clarify, it is the Inspector
General's Office, Congresswoman.
Ms. Norton. I'm sorry. Inspector General's Office.
Mr. Johnson. No.
Ms. Norton. You know, the Inspector General is entirely
independent of the D.C. government and the D.C. public schools?
The reason I ask that is, if you are going to move to high-risk
status and what we have is the Inspector General about to be
onsite permanently, you might want to consider that before
moving to high-risk status. This is a completely independent,
tough office that came into existence from Congress initially
at the time of the control board. It is the kind of thing one
would want to do before slapping some designation on people
that might have an effect beyond a bureaucrat.
Mr. Musso, it is important to clarify your role here. I do
not think there is any other superintendent that has a CFO who
reports to the CFO and not the superintendent. And yet it is
the school system and not the D.C. government or the CFO who
has gotten this high-risk designation. And they are talking
about 2002/2003, and much of it is financial, and the only
years they have looked into with any depth are years before
this superintendent came. So would you tell us about your
unique role here and its relationship to the high-risk
designation?
Mr. Musso. Certainly. Thank you, Congresswoman. Indeed, you
bring up a point that not many have talked about today that is
very important for the record. The findings were based upon
years past, 2002/2003 and past that. Chairman Davis talked
about this being an issue of years in the making. And I briefly
talked about some of the reforms and some of the things that we
have done. Dr. Janey read a statement from the independent
auditor for fiscal year 2005. We talked about how we intend to
end the year with a balanced budget, with $12,000.
Ms. Norton. I know all of that. I am trying to figure out
if why they are high-risk for financial matters and for grants
if in fact any of that comes under your jurisdiction and how
that is handled?
Mr. Musso. That is the point I am trying to make. In terms
of at-risk status, it was based upon findings from years past.
What has not been done or looked at effectively in my
estimation is what we have been doing forward and those things
that I have just talked about. All the reforms that we have
made, and we have talked about items that have occurred under
Dr. Janey's watch, that have not occurred under Dr. Janey's
watch; well, the reforms we have been talking about, the
advances made, the fiscal responsibility, the internal controls
that are in place from my office, those things have occurred on
our watch. We are performing due diligence intelligence, and we
have completed many----
Ms. Norton. Tell me about your meetings. You must have had
meetings therefore with these gentlemen after they pulled back,
after the surprise.
Mr. Musso. We did.
Ms. Norton. What occurred between you and them with respect
to 2002/2003?
Mr. Musso. Our exit meetings were actually very positive in
nature. And when the exit occurred, it was our belief that
there was no fiscal reason for issuing a letter of high-risk
status. All the things that they looked at had been rectified.
Ms. Norton. What was your response to that, either Mr.
Johnson or Mr. La Force? He says he does not understand it, if
financial matters are included. I am trying to get to the
bottom of this, gentlemen.
Mr. La Force. The matters related to years 2002 and 2003
are certainly part of our consideration, but they are not
everything.
Ms. Norton. So you have in fact done your own internal
audits for the years following 2002 and 2003 and the years
preceding them?
Mr. La Force. Beginning in late February of this year and
continuing until roughly late March, we conducted what we call
program monitoring reviews, which is the Department's review
procedure for however States are implementing programs. Those
program reviews included a review of Title I----
Ms. Norton. Now, just a second, that is important. I asked
you to respond to the financial matter, and you heard Mr. Musso
say that, with respect to financial matters, he does not
believe that the high-risk status should obtain. And we can go
on to IDEA, and I am pleased to do that. But I would like a
response to what he just said, which was that those financial
matters do not warrant high-risk, both going forward and what
they have done and with respect to those years.
Mr. La Force. Mr. Musso is rightly proud of the progress
that his office has made at the District, and we congratulate
him on that progress as we have congratulated Dr. Janey on his
progress, but our judgments differ about where they are today.
Ms. Norton. That is pretty vague, sir.
Mr. La Force. I would be happy to continue if you would
like.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Musso--I mean he has been very specific
about why he thinks this.
Mr. Musso. There are several things I would like to say,
too. There is a difference between fiscal accountability and
fiscal accounting. The fiscal accounting is a piece the CFO
talks about. The fiscal accountability is the part that the SEO
and everyone has been talking about in terms of the grants
management, the allocation of funds to subgrantees, those types
of things. So there is clear distinction between the two.
The other piece is, once again, I will go back to the
independent auditor. I mean, the proof is in the pudding. Look
what we have done in 2005. I mean, if we continue to look at
the past, we're never going to move forward. The future is
where we are at. The future is where the children are at. We
have made substantial demonstrable progress, such that an
independent auditor has said that, within the financial
statements. We go several years back; we've tried to correct
those deficiencies and have been successful in doing that.
The other thing that I would like to add for the record is
very clearly I remember, because I have the document back on my
desk, our reply for the fiscal portion of the Department's
issues was dated November 15th. Dr. Janey and I collaborated on
that, so I can say and I need to say for the record that, by
virtue of he or I, we are not fiscally irresponsible in getting
that out. Why they didn't receive it, we can't speak to.
Ms. Norton. Let me lay this to rest by saying the
following: When you have a school system that has some truly
unique issues, and the distinction you make between accounting
and the accountability that goes into your coffer and the rest
is very much worth noting. But when you have a school system
that has a CFO and the CFO does not respond to the
superintendent, you even have a difference therefore with the
other three territories; and the need for very detailed work
and structural advice becomes apparent.
There is no third party here. Congress is a third party.
You are a third party. But the CFO and the superintendent and
the D.C. government are all in the same matrix. And Mr. La
Force, my difficulty is that I have not--you have not
sufficiently played that third party structural role, and it
shows in this high-risk designation.
Mr. Musso.
Mr. Musso. Yes, the other thing I would like to say,
Congresswoman, is you talked about my relationship as the
independent CFO. And the one thing that I want to add is, there
is a relationship there. My relationship with Dr. Janey and his
team is such that he always knows what is going on. That would
be irresponsible to any of us to let happen. So irregardless of
whether I am independent or I am not, what I do on a daily
basis won't change in terms of who I have to report to. That is
just because of who I am.
Ms. Norton. I understand that but the D.C. government is
not going to change that. But it ought to inform the Department
of Education.
Mr. Johnson or Mr. La Force, the IDEA program, that program
has been under an at-risk designation apparently for some time
here in the District of Columbia. Indeed, the IDEA program is
under a court monitor. And you know, we are in tough shape on
that because we paid for 100 percent IDEA, no State assistance,
no assistance from the Federal Government. It is draining money
from the kinds of things that might well be done in other
financial and education matters. Why didn't you go program-by-
program if you wanted to do high-risk?
Mr. Johnson. Actually, that consideration was part of our
discussion over the several months that we talked about it. We
thought that doing a high-risk designation for the District
would be a more comprehensive way to actually help Dr. Janey
get to the issues that need resolution. We thought that was
just the most direct way to do it and the best way to do it.
Ms. Norton. Well, just in this examination, I think back
and forth, I think we have come to a number of other ways that
it might have been done with less controversy. You would have
had me 100 percent on your side, for example. And I am not on
your side now. It is that a blob like that of high-risk is less
informative, it seems to me, than going program-by-program when
you have a school system that does not have a State in the
first place.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to end on a positive note and go
to Cedric Jennings, of course. But I do want to say, you also
have a school system that has--let me get this word right now--
an IG, inspector general, like the Federal Government. You have
some tools to work with that it looks like have not been
plumbed. When you look at his testimony, it is amazing
testimony.
I asked you about, why not go high-risk program? When I
look at what they are doing, they are looking at--and I am not
going to go through this whole thing, but look at the breadth
of it, school security, you indicated permanent site. You ought
to rejoice at that. That should have been included--that is
almost enough to make somebody not do high-risk.
They are looking at Title I programs, they are looking at
management of truancy, they are looking at the management of a
Federal communications grant. You look at them, they are all
over the place, a whole lot more than you all. You need to
collaborate with the way in which the District now does
business because it would be useful to you.
Again, I do want--I do want to be clear that what we have
heard here today is that this superintendent had a charge that
is, if anything, outrageous. Here is your charge. Master
education plan, got to have that; master facilities plan, must
have that. And the financial operations of the school system--
like, I must say, the financial operations of a lot of the rest
of the government--is one of the great unfixed parts of
government. So put that on your plate too.
And who cares that you have only been here 1 year? Just get
it done. If you don't have it done in the first year after you
receive a few e-mails and had some discussions, then be
forewarned, sorry, you are at high risk. You are not doing what
you should do.
I think there was another way to do it. I think there were
interim ways to do it to get more than their attention. I defy
you to tell me another superintendent that has to recreate a
school system from the ground up. That is what I expect of this
superintendent. And I, for one, will accept nothing less.
Now, Cedric, who overcame what so many students in the
District of Columbia have overcome, and they have gone on to
college--and the chairman and I are so proud of the fact that
there has been a 40 percent increase in college attendance--
Cedric Jennings, I give all the credit to you, to your mother,
and to whatever teachers in the D.C. public school system
recognized your talent and encouraged you.
But I do want to say for the record, because there is
something else on Dr. Janey's plate that I talked about last
night at an important meeting that the press would never note,
but was full of D.C. parents, most of them single mothers. It
was at the newly renovated Kelly Miller Middle School. It was
called Kelly Miller Junior High School when I went to Banneker,
when it was a junior high school. I said I don't want anybody
from the old Banneker--which is still unrenovated, was old when
I went there--to even come into Kelly Miller because we are
going to have school envy now breaking out all over the
District of Columbia.
But this was a meeting not about schools; this was a
meeting about the elephant in the room that is on his plate.
This was a meeting about marriage and family, and that is what
is on his plate too.
In whatever condition we send these children to you, you
just better do your job. That is what we tell them. That he
does not have what Eleanor, Portia and Nellie Holmes had, which
was Coleman and Vela Holmes, and an extended family to boot. He
doesn't have what all of my classmates had. Nevertheless, you
had better do it.
That is why I talk some turkey to my parents. Talked about
a marriage, talked about the unavailability of marriageable
Black men because they get siphoned off into the thug economy
so young and yet what we have to do for our children while we
are putting the Black family back together. Talk some real
stuff.
You know what, the parents, the people of the District of
Columbia, it is like they are bringing extraordinary pressure
on you, we are not only ready to hear that tough talk, they
rose up and clapped about that tough talk about family and
marriage and putting all that back together again.
This young man has to have had a momma. That is who I would
like to meet. Because in order for him to overcome--I know
Ballou High School, and you talk about Bishop Long, but that
mother in there was Dr. Janey's predecessor's partner, whatever
the kids were doing.
So I have to ask you one final question, Cedric. When you
talked about educational studies and going on to Harvard and
then you come back home, of course I was joyful that they
hadn't snatched you. But it is interesting that you--Dr. Janey
has not been able to snag you into the D.C. public schools.
Dr. Janey. Yet.
Ms. Norton. You said that you work for all the most needy
children. I do admire you for where you work. We can't get
folks like you to work with our foster children. But I do have
to ask you whether you have any intention of becoming a teacher
in the D.C. public schools.
Mr. Jennings. I have to answer that, right?
Ms. Norton. Are you going to take the fifth on me?
Mr. Jennings. I don't know. I don't know.
Ms. Norton. Are you prepared--I don't want to put you on
the spot. Are you prepared to indicate why you went to the
Department of Children----
Mr. Jennings. Child and Family Services Agency.
Ms. Norton. Were you recruited from them? You have a
Master's in--is it in social work?
Mr. Jennings. Yes.
Ms. Norton. What a jewel. In social work.
I am almost through, Mr. Chairman.
And education. But you went to social work, where the need
is even greater. Is that why you went there?
Mr. Jennings. I enjoy that idea of assisting children from
a holistic standpoint, because in social work I am able to put
my hands on the various areas of the children's lives. And for
me, I have, I guess, the opportunity to be effective in every
regard in the child's life; that is why I chose social work.
Ms. Norton. Amen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you. Your 5 minutes has expired.
I want to thank all of you for this. We want to, as Ms.
Norton said, put this on a positive note where we all come away
from this working together. When we convene here next year,
hopefully we will be showing progress. This is not going to be
solved overnight, we all understand it, but working together I
think we can bring us closer to producing more Cedric
Jenningses.
Thank you very much. Hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[The prepared statements of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings, Hon.
C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, and additional information submitted
for the hearing record follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7852.050
<all>