<DOC>
[106th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:61528.wais]
STATUS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS PLAN FOR CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS AND ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 30, 1999
__________
Serial No. 106-64
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
61-528 CC WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
STEPHEN HORN, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
Carolina ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
BOB BARR, Georgia DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
DAN MILLER, Florida JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas JIM TURNER, Texas
LEE TERRY, Nebraska THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
GREG WALDEN, Oregon JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
DOUG OSE, California ------
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California (Independent)
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
David A. Kass, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian
Carla J. Martin, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
STEPHEN HORN, California DC
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
Ex Officio
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Howard Denis, Staff Director and Counsel
Anne Mack Barnes, Professional Staff Member
Bob Dix, Professional Staff Member
Melissa Wojciak, Professional Staff Member
Jon Bouker, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 30, 1999................................... 1
Statement of:
Williams, Anthony, Mayor, District of Columbia; Kevin
Chavous, chairman, education committee, District of
Columbia City Council; Constance Newman, vice-chairman,
D.C. Control Board; Arlene Ackerman, superintendent,
District of Columbia Public Schools; Wilma Harvey,
president, District of Columbia Public Schools Board of
Education; and Maudine Cooper, chairman, District of
Columbia Public Schools Emergency Transitional Education
Board of Trustees.......................................... 9
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Ackerman, Arlene, superintendent, District of Columbia Public
Schools:
Information concerning attorney's fees................... 62
Prepared statement of.................................... 39
Chavous, Kevin, chairman, education committee, District of
Columbia City Council, prepared statement of............... 18
Cooper, Maudine, chairman, District of Columbia Public
Schools Emergency Transitional Education Board of Trustees,
prepared statement of...................................... 45
Davis, Hon. Thomas M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia, prepared statement of................... 3
Newman, Constance, vice-chairman, D.C. Control Board,
prepared statement of...................................... 28
Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, a Representative in Congress
from the District of Columbia, prepared statement of....... 7
Williams, Anthony, Mayor, District of Columbia, prepared
statement of............................................... 12
STATUS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS PLAN FOR CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS AND ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE
----------
FRIDAY, APRIL 30, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas M. Davis
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Davis, Horn and Norton.
Also present: Representative Biggert.
Staff present: Howard Denis, staff director/counsel; Anne
Mack Barnes, Bob Dix, and Melissa Wojciak, professional staff
members; Trey Hardin, communications and policy director; Jon
Bouker, minority counsel; and Jean Gosa, minority staff
assistant.
Mr. Davis. Good morning and welcome. We are here today to
review many of the issues and challenges which confront the
District of Columbia public school system. I am as always
indebted to the ranking member of the subcommittee, Eleanor
Holmes Norton, for working with me in a bipartisan manner, and
I'm happy to have Mr. Horn from California, whose family has
been in Washington, DC, for many generations, with us as well.
We are looking to the future.
Mrs. Biggert has just come in, too, from Illinois. Thank
you for coming as well.
We are looking to the future. Last year the subcommittee
conducted four hearings on the D.C. schools. Today we will
examine the status of a number of the reform efforts. We seek
an environment in which students can learn without fear for
their personal safety, an environment that invites stakeholders
to share in the effort to develop creative solutions. We seek
an environment that is not driven by crisis.
I do not minimize the magnitude of the challenges that
remain in restoring full confidence in the public school
system. We have to work together to ensure that successful
academic achievement and social development is the hallmark of
the system's reputation. In fairness, it should be acknowledged
that meaningful progress is being achieved. I want to thank our
witnesses today and all of those who have played a role in that
effort.
This subcommittee continues to be very active aggressively
pursuing public policy developments and oversight review
intended to facilitate the successful revitalization of the
District of Columbia. The current reform effort underway in the
District's public schools is a very significant element in the
overall revitalization.
Recent events, including the decision of the bond houses in
New York to upgrade the District's debt rating, is evidence
that overall efforts in the city across a wide front are
producing results.
The leadership and vision being provided by Superintendent
Arlene Ackerman and her team at the DCPS, along with the
support and the direction provided by the Board of Education,
the Emergency Board of Trustees, the Control Board, Mayor
Williams and the City Council, provide the foundation for
future successes; additionally, the support of parents,
community leaders, the private sector, teachers,
administrators, and support staff demonstrating our joint
commitment to academic excellence.
The District of Columbia College Access Act, which I
introduced, and which the subcommittee approved unanimously 2
weeks ago, will result in expanded opportunities for high
school graduates for affordable college educations. We are
deeply grateful to all of our colleagues for their recognition
of the enormous value of H.R. 974 and the benefits of expanding
choices and access to higher education that the bill will bring
about.
We have to provide opportunities to achieve academic
excellence in facilities that are safe, have efficient heating
and air conditioning, whose roofs don't leak, and can be
modernized. We have to be able to include advances in
technology, fiber optic cable, arts and sciences laboratories
and special programming activities. This must be a priority.
Another priority mission is to develop, update, and
implement an academic plan which meets the needs of the school
population and prepares students to compete in a global
economy.
I thank our distinguished panel for demonstrating the
leadership and commitment to the District's children. I look
forward to their testimony and the opportunity to pursue a
number of questions.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Thomas M. Davis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6579.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6579.002
Mr. Davis. I would now yield to Delegate Norton for an
opening statement.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin my
opening statement, I would just like to commend the D.C. Public
Schools on the way in which they have responded to the
aftermath of the great tragedy at Columbine High School in
Littleton, CO. While, like many school systems across the
United States, there had to be some evacuations, you had to
close schools, it's over with and done with, and it's settled
down.
These children may regard this matter as pranks. I would
hope that if we do find that children have engaged in these
threats, that strong sanctions would be taken against them so
that an example could be made so that children would, in fact,
get the point that these are not pranks and are not considered
pranks. If, in fact, adults or children close to adults are
found to be responsible, I would hope that some prosecution
would occur so that we could have a deterrent effect upon such
copycat incidents.
Today's hearing reflects the continuing interest of the
chairman, the subcommittee, and the Congress in improvements in
the D.C. Public Schools. Of the problems that have arisen in
home rule governance, none has had a more serious impact than
those that relate to education and children. The District's
problems in its public schools are typical of big cities.
However, the paralysis and stalemate that developed between the
Board of Education and former Superintendent Franklin Smith
left the schools to drift downward and finally hit bottom and
contributed to the loss of the board's power and standing in
the community. A commendable and structured effort to regain
both is under way.
The decline in the D.C. Public Schools has been so
wholesale that the initial reforms related simply to keeping
them standing. Much of what has occupied the appointed Board of
Trustees, the superintendent, and the Council has related not
to academic improvements, but to support issues, such as
security, fixing roofs, getting a correct count of children in
the schools, and assuring edible food in school cafeterias. The
primacy of these issues in the first stage of reform was
demonstrated by the appointment of a former general as
superintendent, Julius Becton. To General Becton's credit, he
also brought in an educational expert, Arlene Ackerman, who has
since become superintendent.
Although Mrs. Ackerman became superintendent more quickly
than anyone had anticipated after the unexpected resignation of
General Becton, she quickly won the confidence of many in the
city and the Congress. This confidence came largely because she
broke through the academic stalemate and quickly began to make
major changes unlike any that had been seen in many years. One
common example was a turnaround in test scores in virtually
every grade. Another was the Summer STARS program and an after-
school program during the school year, one of the first of its
kind in the country, to tackle social promotion by reducing
class size and giving children the hands-on academic help they
need.
The Clinton administration has been so impressed with these
and similar innovations that the President, the First Lady, and
the Secretary of Education have sent millions of dollars to the
city for the educational reforms designed by Superintendent
Ackerman, including $5 million for the Summer STARS program.
Secretary Richard Riley, who spoke at my Education town meeting
this past Monday, announced there another $5 million grant for
the District of Columbia Youth Investment Program for the
superintendent's after-school programs.
Large problems continue to plague the D.C. Public Schools
and the superintendent, the trustees, and the Board of
Education are under great pressure to proceed more rapidly to
attend to them. Among the most serious are continuing problems
with special education where the children most in need simply
cannot afford to wait any longer. The difference between today
and recent years, however, is that the superintendent has not
hesitated to act boldly whatever the consequences to existing
management and has not had interference from others that
sometimes made it difficult to take bold action in the past.
As the Control Board proceeds toward restoration of the
home rule powers of the school board, District officials must
look at what home rule governance and structure best suits our
school system today. Many cities are moving away from
politically based school boards toward structures that assure
parent participation and guarantee that the children will be
the overriding concern. I have not examined what the available
options are. I can only hope that some in the city with direct
responsibilities are doing so. I have formed no opinion yet,
nor, I believe, have most residents. Most would agree, however,
that what we had surely did not work, and indeed fell apart.
What we had may well be quite capable of working, but the
burden will be on the present system to demonstrate that it can
work for children.
One thing seems clear. There has been a change in the
political culture in the District. It did not come from
Congress. It did not come from the Control Board. It came
directly from the streets and the people. Residents will no
longer tolerate factionalism on the board, interference with
the superintendent who wants to move forward, poor performance
by our children, or unaccountable personnel. The District does
not need overseers to make the schools work. Residents know
what to do. They simply won't take it anymore.
I'm very pleased to welcome today's witnesses, Mayor
Anthony Williams, Council Member Kevin Chavous, chair of the
Council's education committee; Wilma Harvey, president of D.C.
Board of Education; Constance Newman, vice chair of the Control
Board; Maudine Cooper, chair of the Emergency Board of
Trustees; and Superintendent Arlene Ackerman. I commend each
and every one of them for the admirable leadership they are
providing in the effort to reform and refurbish our public
schools and to assure families and residents a school system of
which we can all be proud.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for this hearing and for your
efforts on behalf of our schools.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6579.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6579.004
Mr. Davis. Mrs. Biggert.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very
much for allowing me to participate in your hearing today. I am
on the Government Reform Committee, but not on the District of
Columbia Subcommittee, but public education is of great
importance to me, and public education in large cities. While
in the Illinois Legislature, I worked on the Chicago school
reform. I'm proud to say that it proved to be a great success.
So I look forward to hearing about the reform in the District
today, and I'm happy to be here. Thank you.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much.
Any other statements? If not, I would like to call our
panel of witnesses to testify. Mayor Anthony Williams;
Councilman Kevin Chavous, the chairman of the education
committee; Connie Newman, the vice chair of the Control Board;
Arlene Ackerman, the superintendent of the District of Columbia
Public Schools; Wilma Harvey, the president of the D.C. Board
of Education; and Maudine Cooper, the chair of the Emergency
Board of Trustees.
As you know, it's the policy of the committee--is Mr.
Chavous here yet? Councilman Chavous is not here yet, but we
will swear him in when he gets here. It is the policy of the
committee that all witnesses be sworn before they can testify.
If you would rise with me and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Davis. Mayor Williams, I understand that you have some
pressing budgetary meetings coming up, and so I will start with
you. If you have to excuse yourself before the questions, we
certainly understand, and we just look forward to a very
continued cooperative working relationship with you. Thank you
for being here.
STATEMENTS OF ANTHONY WILLIAMS, MAYOR, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA;
KEVIN CHAVOUS, CHAIRMAN, EDUCATION COMMITTEE, DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CITY COUNCIL; CONSTANCE NEWMAN, VICE-CHAIRMAN, D.C.
CONTROL BOARD; ARLENE ACKERMAN, SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS; WILMA HARVEY, PRESIDENT, DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION; AND MAUDINE COOPER,
CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS EMERGENCY
TRANSITIONAL EDUCATION BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Mayor Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just at a
meeting actually with some of the county executives, and we
were talking about contingency plans for the Wilson Bridge. I'm
sure you and the committee would appreciate that.
I want to thank you and Congresswoman Norton, Congressman
Horn, all of the members of the committee for having us here
today for the opportunity to testify. I'm pleased to join this
panel to discuss our shared vision for education, to elaborate
on the questions of governance and the operations of the school
system.
This is a time for optimism in the District. Our bond
rating is up, our books are balanced, and our economy is still
expanding. But a rising economic tide does not ensure the
success of our education system. Our school system needs to
experience a similar turnaround. I'm committed to working with
the superintendent and the other leaders of our city to make
sure that this happens.
My vision for education has three central components.
First, our children deserve the best possible schools with
first-class teachers. Second, our approach to education must
recognize that an equal part of a child's learning and
development takes place outside the classroom. This is
exemplified by my belief in the idea of parents as first
teachers. Third, we must mobilize all of the resources of the
community toward the education of our young people. That means
involving parents, teachers, civic leaders, faith
organizations, as well as the business community in the life of
every child.
Let me discuss each of these in turn and highlight a few of
the initiatives. As I mentioned, our first and most immediate
priority is to make sure that our children have the best
schools with the best teachers in the region. Our students
deserve to learn under a roof that doesn't leak. They deserve
schools where bathrooms work and classrooms stay warm in the
winter and cool during summer. That's why I have proposed
investing $364 million in renovation, modernization, and
construction of public schools. Among other things, these funds
will pay for two new schools and will allow us to renovate
eight schools a year for the next 6 years. The funds will bring
our education system into the 21st century providing access to
modern technology and computers.
Competition can and should drive this effort to make our
schools the best they can be. I believe that parents should
have a choice among public schools and charter schools so that
they can hold schools accountable for the education their
children receive.
I also believe our children deserve the best teachers in
the region. District teaching salaries are well below those in
Maryland and Virginia. With close to 70 percent of our teachers
approaching retirement age in the years ahead, we face a
critical window in teacher hiring. To help our city compete for
and retain the best and brightest new educators, I have
proposed a 4 to 5 percent raise for teachers, 4.5 percent in
1999 and 5 percent in the year 2000.
The second part of my vision is the idea that educating a
child does not begin and end with the school bell. It begins
before birth and continues through the early years and into
high school and college. Educating a child means making a
commitment before school, after school, and in that general
environment.
Early childhood programs for children are essential for
making a child enter school ready to learn. Part of the $33
million Children and Youth Investment Partnership could be used
to expand access to these services for at-risk families. These
programs have been proven to improve school performance, reduce
instances of child abuse, as well as save as much as $7 for
every dollar invested.
But quality early childhood and preschool programs are not
enough. Young people must also have access to worthwhile,
wholesome activities during the afternoon hours. We know that,
for example, juvenile crime suddenly triples in the hour after
the school bell rings, yet as many as 45,000 District students
go without after-school programs. My proposal for this
partnership could change that equation, providing students with
these opportunities.
The third major component of my education vision is
recognizing that the entire community has a role to play in the
life of every child. Parents, teachers, and businesses must be
engaged together in the process of education.
I believe we must support parents in their role as first
teachers. We must encourage and support parents to get involved
in their child's education. Every parent should have access to
quality affordable day care, counseling, and other services
designed to help raise that child.
I am also asking the business community to play a role in
the education of the District. This is happening on a number of
fronts. For one, we have worked in partnership with 15
companies and foundations to establish the D.C. College Access
Program. It is a creative partnership that will awaken students
to the opportunities available for higher education and make
those opportunities possible by providing scholarships to make
college affordable. In addition to college scholarships, the
program will provide as many as 11,000 students with college
advisors in their high schools to help them navigate the
complex testing, application, and financial aid process.
Members of the business community can serve as mentors for
young people or get involved in a summer jobs program, which I
propose extending into a year-round program. It would be
coupled with a new youth internship program as well as a youth-
to-careers and entrepreneurship program to engage high school
dropouts in nontraditional education and vocational testing.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I thank you for
the opportunity to testify before you today and look forward to
answering your questions.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mayor Williams follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6579.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6579.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6579.007
Mr. Davis. Mr. Chavous, if you would rise, I have to swear
you in. Can you stand up?
Mr. Chavous. Yes.
Mr. Davis. Happy to have you here.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Davis. Councilman Chavous, if you would care to make
any opening remarks, we have copies of everything that has been
submitted. You don't need to take the full 5 minutes.
Mr. Chavous. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
committee, including our Delegate and our Congresswoman. It's
good to see you all.
Sorry I was a few minutes late. I am a member of the
finance committee on the Council, and this morning we voted out
of committee the most sweeping tax package this city has ever
seen. I'm proud to report that this morning.
I am Kevin Chavous, a member of the Council of the District
of Columbia representing ward 7. As you know, I'm speaking in
my capacity this morning as chair of the committee on
education, libraries and recreation. I welcome this opportunity
to report to you on the role that the Council has played and
will continue to play in the ongoing reform effort taking place
in our public school system.
You do have my prepared remarks and I just want to
highlight a couple of things that indicate the involvement of
the Council in this effort.
The committee on education over the past few months has had
an unprecedented number of hearings involving the District of
Columbia Public Schools and the charter schools over the past
few months. Topics have included areas such as school bus
transportation, certification of bus drivers, as well as
various other special education issues; student truancy and
dropout prevention policies and programs; the public charter
schools and their role in this community; long-range facilities
master plan; and the interagency collaboration effort where we
have asked various agencies that touch children to come
together on ways to work better together.
This month the Council did something that will move this
system forward in the area of special education. Working with
the superintendent, we approved at the request of my committee,
the establishment of a special Council committee to investigate
the excessive spending, poor accountability, and ineffective,
low-quality offerings in the special education programs.
Clearly, problems were manifested long before our current
superintendent came to this city, but it is the goal of this
committee, of the Council committee on education, to assist her
in offering a quality education for our special education
students that number approximately 8,000 children.
In addition, less than a year ago the full Council voted
and passed the uniform per pupil student funding formula which
was later approved by Congress. This law is noteworthy because
it allows the funds that we allocate for education to follow
the student. It also provides a sound basis for the fiscal
budget to be established with respect to how we spend our
money. The public charter schools is implementing this formula
this school year, and DCPS, our public school system, will
begin similar implementation in school year 1999 and 2000.
We have, my office, maintained almost daily contact with
Mrs. Ackerman and members of her staff as well as members of
the public charter school community. We intend to be of
assistance to both entities as well as to provide oversight,
and to do so we need to be informed to understand the issues
and be able to answer the questions of our constituents. The
strength of this communication will support our efforts in
rebuilding a budget consensus process and make sure that the
2000 budget reflects the priorities of our citizens. The good
news is that all of the committee and budget working group
recommendations, if they are all accepted, Mrs. Ackerman will
get close to what she wants for 1999 and 2000. The Mayor has
made that commitment, and I do as well.
I want to highlight a couple of other Council actions
before I close that impact on school reform. In the budget that
we passed out of committee just a couple of weeks ago, we
requested the DCPS study the feasibility and the requirements
for establishing a residential school for school year 2000 and
2001. I might parenthetically add that we have seen with the
SEA foundation, a residential school that is a public charter
school, that there is a greater need for a holistic approach
for the education of our children. Because of some of the
dysfunctional homes that a lot of our children come from, we
feel, the Council feels strongly that the city should make an
investment in a residential school.
In addition, we have requested in our committee report that
DCPS establish a comprehensive student truancy and dropout
prevention program for school year 1999 and 2000. I can tell
you that far too many of our children are on the street or
visiting local businesses during school hours. Working with the
Mayor, Chief Ramsey, and Superintendent Ackerman, this year we
sent thousands of letters to businesses urging them to report
children who come into their establishments during the school
day to the local school.
As a strong supporter of before- and after-school programs,
my colleagues in the Council and I have requested that DCPS
apply for the 72 Federal grants for which they qualify.
According to reports, only 47 of those grants were applied for
last year. We feel that if we can maximize the funds that are
available through Federal grants, it would enhance some of the
efforts that Mrs. Ackerman has been under taking with respect
to school reform.
With respect to school safety, we voted out of committee
just recently to transfer the responsibility of school security
from DCPS to the Metropolitan Police Department. Sadly, it was
on the same morning of the Littleton, CO, incident. It is my
belief that Mrs. Ackerman, working with the chief of police,
can put in place a sound approach to school security that
reflects the public safety needs both inside and outside of the
school.
Another project in progress is the State Education Agency.
It is my belief that the District of Columbia has numerous
State education responsibilities, and there is no single agency
that handles this task. Therefore, we have State education
agency functions that are located in a number of different
agencies without the benefit of the collaboration and
comprehensive planning that should take place. Our committee
has suggested and we will be proposing legislation that would
blend those responsibilities into one single entity.
With respect to the public charter schools, we do feel that
the public charter school experiment is working in the
District. We support public charter schools. We do need to
address some of the inherent inconsistencies in some of their
funding, particularly as it relates to facilities. We have a
lot of good charter school programs that have been proposed,
but one of the big barriers is in the area of facilities and
where they are going to house their efforts. So we are working
with Connie Newman on the Control Board and Mrs. Ackerman to
find a way to make excess D.C. school surplus property more
available to charter schools.
With respect to new school construction, I am very pleased
to report that the Mayor has worked with us in putting in place
a new school construction plan that is noteworthy here in the
District. We are the only jurisdiction in America that hasn't
built a new school in the last 20 years, but over the next 10
years, we will either build from the ground up 8 to 10 new
schools or totally modernize them.
Finally, let me just say that President Clinton has
proposed $114 million for a special subsidized bonding
authority for DCPS school construction and repairs; however, to
successfully implement and complete the plan, Federal funds are
needed. I'm requesting the Congress to consider providing the
$73 million for fiscal year 2000 as has been outlined in the
Mayor's fiscal year 2000 financial plan. That will make a big
difference in aiding our effort toward new school construction.
In closing, for as much progress as the Council has made,
there remains work to be done in support of public education
reform. The Authority, Mayor, Council, and superintendent are
committed to working together in support of public education.
I do want to say that we have a jewel in Mrs. Arlene
Ackerman. She should be commended for her effort and
perseverance in accepting the many challenges to the reform of
our school system. While she has a lot of challenges, we must
understand and appreciate that the problems she has been tasked
to fix weren't new--they were here before she got here. She
didn't cause them. But I think that she has done a fabulous
job, and we are committed to working with her to make that a
reality.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify and for your
support, and I look foward to working with you in the future
and to entertain any questions you may have.
Mr. Davis. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chavous follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6579.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6579.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6579.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6579.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6579.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6579.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6579.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6579.015
Mr. Davis. Ms. Newman.
Ms. Newman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Congresswoman
Norton and members of the subcommittee. I am the member of the
Authority with lead responsibility for public education and
appreciate the opportunity to testify this morning. When I
asked your staff how much time, they went 5, 4, 3, and I
stopped them before they said 1 minute, but I will race through
because I know that the full statement will be in the record.
We do believe that permanent change is occurring and
tangible progress is being made in all areas of public
education, and, importantly, in the interest of the children of
the District of Columbia. These improvements are the result of
effective leadership and development of a strong reform-minded
team under the leadership of Arlene Ackerman, superintendent,
and chief executive officer. These changes have been in
academic performance, in management, and in fiscal environment.
The Authority is pleased with and fully supports the
direction of her efforts and is committed to the aggressive
reform agenda she has established. Through all of her efforts,
the Emergency Transitional Board of Trustees has supported her.
We are further encouraged by the efforts under way to
involve the elected school board in the governance of the
school system as an active partner in improving student
academic performance. The priority of the Authority has been to
ensure that the Board of Education is fully prepared to assume
responsibility for the school system by June 30, 2000.
A key element in the transition plan that has recently been
put together requires the Board of Education and the
superintendent to develop a strategic plan that contains short
and long-term goals and objectives. The Authority is committed
to working with all parties to ensure that transition plan is
fully implemented.
With regard to academic performance of students, the
Authority is pleased. The results of the initiatives of the
superintendent, elimination of social promotion, implementation
of the Summer STARS program, increased principal and teacher
accountability, more service and training, and more parental
involvement, have contributed to the students' better academic
performance.
Turning now to physical improvements, I'm pleased with the
efforts of the superintendent and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to make the schools cleaner and safer. Much progress
has been made in the last year. The Corps understands that a
lead responsibility of the elected school board is to develop a
master plan, a long-range facilities master plan. They are
prepared to work with the school board in preparing this very
important document.
It was mentioned earlier and I should reinforce the
importance of the charter schools and the charter school
movement. We do believe that the District can be a model for
the rest of the country, given, frankly, the fact that we have
moved faster than any other jurisdiction in establishing
charter schools. We do know that we need to work in a much more
efficient and effective way in supporting charter schools,
particularly in addressing their space requirements.
For the second year in a row we know with confidence how
many students are in the schools. Knowing the exact number has
become more important since the adoption of the per pupil
funding formula and the superintendent's plans to use a
weighted student formula to allocate funds to the individual
schools. We believe that this new formula is an equitable way
to fund education and will address some of the inequities that
have existed between schools. We will work with the Council and
the Mayor to address any problems that surface through the
implementation of this formula.
As required by the act, the Authority hired an independent
auditor to audit the school's official enrollment count of
75,000. The independent auditor has verified the number. It is
75,483. I think it's give or take. While we have made progress,
the Authority is still concerned, however, with the level of
documentation being maintained by the school system and the
public charter schools with regard to verification of
residents.
I want to second Chairman Chavous's concern about special
education. Nearly 10,000 students are expected in special
education in the coming year. Fiscal year 2000 special
education programs will consume more than $170 million of the
appropriated budget. The Authority supports the initiative of
Council Member Chavous to assemble a task force which will
include the courts, the administration, educators, and parents
to develop a coordinated and comprehensive response to address
this problem.
In conclusion, the Authority is pleased with the progress
in the District's schools. Superintendent Ackerman and her team
of committed educators and managers are energetically tackling
the education and management problems confronting the public
schools, and we can see evidence of change. My colleagues and I
recognize that much still needs to be done, and sustained
reform will require the cooperation and participation of this
entire community. We are committed to working with all parties
to ensure long-term improvements in the interests of the
children.
Mr. Davis. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Newman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6579.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6579.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6579.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6579.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6579.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6579.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6579.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6579.023
Mr. Davis. Mrs. Ackerman.
Mrs. Ackerman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman
Norton, Congressman Horn and Congresswoman Biggert. I am Arlene
Ackerman, superintendent of the District of Columbia Public
Schools. I thank you for providing me the opportunity to share
the status of DCPS.
At our previous hearing last spring, we shared with you
what the school system was doing to build an exemplary school
system. I recall you asking me on a few occasions, but
particularly at that particular hearing, if school would open
on time, and I answered yes. Indeed, school did open on time
like it does across every other school district in this
country. I am confident that we will never have to ask that
question again, and it's such a basic question. What we want to
focus on now are the larger issues that face our urban system
as we try to provide our youth with the skills and knowledge
necessary to turn dreams into reality.
Since that hearing, we at central office and the principals
and teachers and parents in each school have been busy with the
reform agenda. Our focus is clear, and that is improving
teaching and learning. We have put in place clear standards for
what students should know and be able to do in all areas and
all content areas. We have invested more in professional
development and plan to extend and expand our efforts to reach
every teacher with sustained learning opportunities.
We have continued to work with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers making important capital improvements. Full facility
assessments have been completed for all schools, and we have
begun plans for full school rehabilitation for one school in
each ward next year while we work with the elected board on a
long-range facility plan. For 1999, procurement actions for
five roof replacement projects, the long-range master facility
plan, and education specifications have been initiated. If we
want to see our children learn, we need to assure a safe
environment where principals and teachers have the adequate
resources that they need.
The District is continuing with a principal evaluation that
sends a clear signal to principals that academic growth is our
No. 1 priority. We have also implemented, though, this year a
new teacher evaluation. Principals now have the ability to
identify low-performing teachers, give them assistance, and
should they not show signs of improvement within 90 days, the
teacher can be dismissed.
Our investment in instructional technology is bringing more
computers to every school in addition to additional training to
our teachers and support staff. In order to provide more
instructional time for our students who we know need extended
opportunities to learn, we have created a Saturday morning
program across the District. We are proud to say that more than
10,000 students attend our Saturday academies where we focus on
reading and writing and math. We are making important changes
and are preparing for a summer school where we expect and
anticipate upward of 25,000 students to attend.
Across the District, student achievement showed gains
between the spring of 1997 and spring of 1998, and I'm
confident that we will continue to see that kind of growth.
Special education, however, continues to be an area that the
deeper we go, the more challenges we seem to face. It is clear
that drastic changes were needed and are still needed, and we
are taking actions to try new solutions. We have had difficulty
attracting staff to the District in this area as there is a
national shortage of special ed educators, and many are
skeptical to join a department that has had such a long history
of neglect. We have developed, however, a new incentive package
to try and become more competitive with surrounding
jurisdictions.
We are also working to grow our own staff with local
universities and changing how we think about delivering
services to students. After reviewing current practices and
looking at other districts, we are now convinced that one of
our problems has been that the local school has not been
involved in the assessment process. We will see changes over
the next month, and you will hear us announce changes over the
next 30 days that will drastically change the way that we do
business in special education. You will also see a realignment
of and a redeployment of special ed staff, central office
staff, as well as central resources that will go to the
schools. I can only hope that the community will remain patient
as we make these changes in many areas.
One of the most important reform initiatives of this year,
however, is the planning we have done for implementing the new
weighted student formula. We are assuring that resources follow
the students based on need and the needs of the student, and
that schools have the opportunity to make decisions about the
best way to use those resources. Across the District
principals, teachers, and parents and community members will
now make the decisions about how to allocate those resources,
not central office. For the first time in this community, every
school and every member of the public will know where the
resources go and how the resources are being spent at each
school as well as the logic behind how the schools decide to
spend their resources.
In the past few months, we have worked hard to develop the
weighted student formula. We have had numerous community
meetings to share the weighted student formula with the
community, and we have made changes in central office to better
support schools in the development of their school plans. Each
school now has completed a full needs assessment, developed a
school plan and a budget. Our principals, parents, and teachers
have worked many, many hours over the past 2 months to develop
these plans. The process has provided a powerful experience for
our principals, parents, teachers, and community members to
learn more about their school and chart a course for its
future. We have heard many positive comments about this
experience. We believe that giving authority to schools for a
budget and staffing offer schools the opportunity to realize
their dreams.
One reason that we have been able to implement this reform
is because of the change in how we as a system are to be funded
by the city this coming year. We have created our school budget
following the law that the City Council developed and passed a
year ago. We are making sure that more resources now go to the
schools. The law created a per pupil formula that funds the
charter schools and the D.C. Public Schools in the same manner.
The formula in the law is clear in determining and providing a
methodology. We constructed our budget based on what the law
generates, and we are proud to say that of the proposed budget,
94 percent will go directly to schools and less than 6 percent
to central's office. This is down from 15 percent 2 years ago,
a central office budget that was at 15 percent.
We have come a long way, and we still have a long way to
go. Our reform agenda and budget request is based upon the law
and meeting the needs of our students. We have closed the
budget deficit, and we want to ensure stable funding as
intended by the law. I urge you to support us as we shape the
budget that will allow us to carry forth our reform agenda. We
have made progress, and we are proud of that progress, but we
do realize that we still have a very long way to go. Thank you.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Ackerman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6579.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6579.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6579.026
Mr. Davis. Maudine Cooper.
Mrs. Cooper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Norton, Mrs.
Biggert. I'm very pleased to provide testimony to you this
morning on behalf of the Emergency Transitional Education Board
of Trustees, which I chair. Next month will be our
superintendent's first anniversary, having held this incredible
responsibility over the last year, and we want to congratulate
her in advance of that anniversary, but also recognize that
while her modesty and those of this panel view her progress as
incremental, from what we know, sitting as the Board of
Trustees, it is really incredible. The challenges that she has
faced, the management by discovery in some instances, has made
it more than just a small incremental activity. It really has
been incredible.
I want to say to you that we as the Board of Trustees view
our responsibility as supportive of the mission of educational
reform. This mission can be succinctly grouped into four core
areas as defined by the Financial Authority: improved academic
performance for all students; the promotion of educational
equity; the institution of sound management practices; and the
development of a safe, healthy and cost-effective environment
in which our children can learn.
Our role as trustees is that of a policy-oriented support
group and not one of micromanagement, and certainly not
micromanaging the superintendent and her staff. Our job is to
support her by marshaling the forces that we bring to the
community, that we bring to this task by virtue of our roles in
the community.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, and Council Member Norton
particularly, we are not educational experts, and I think we
were selected for that reason. The revelations found in
Children in Crisis serve as the backdrop by which we function,
and we take that seriously.
So we are very pleased with the superintendent's
performance, but, again, we know personally of the challenges
that she faces as she tries to improve the educational activity
for 71,889 students in our system.
My presentation will follow the six summary areas, Mr.
Chairman, that you outlined in your questions to us. No. 1, the
DCPS future capital improvement plan. On January 28, the
superintendent proposed and the trustees approved a
comprehensive capital improvement plan, which, I believe, was
shared with your office. At any rate, the goal of that plan was
to make our schools engaging, compelling, effective, and
efficient environments for learning, teaching, working, and for
community activities. We are very proud of that, and the
preliminary total budget for years 1 through 10 is
approximately $1 billion.
The plan encompasses everything for modernization, public-
private partnerships and ADA improvements to name a few. I
might add that includes the toilets that you have heard so much
about lately.
Item No. 2 was the update on DCPS's academic plan. As to
the academic plan, the trustees have supported the curriculum
thrust that our superintendent had put forth: ending social
promotion; developing more challenging academic standards;
creating new report cards and new school profiles; increasing
reading and math programs; and, of course, as you have already
heard, the Saturday STARS program and the SAT 9 students, who
will be working in those Saturday programs for 3 hours,
approximately 3 hours; as well as now a program that is going
on on Saturdays besides the summer program, the development of
the Summer STARS program in which more, as you know, over
22,000 students, attended for 6 weeks. We have also adopted a
new K through 6 reading and math series. You heard about the
weighted student formula.
Item 3 that you presented to us was an update on the DCPS
technology plan. You already heard something about that from
various members of this panel. We are very pleased to see that
the city administrators and superintendent are proposing again
to make sure that we have adequate technology in our schools;
however, there are some problems. Procurement falls under the
city, as you know. This means that DCPS is required to rely on
city administrators and city procedures to purchase fundamental
items for its students. In a word, this is a ludicrous process.
We have got a superintendent who has to rely on others, in
my judgment, second-guessing her in terms of what she needs and
when she needs it. Given this what I call a bureaucratic and
convoluted paradigm through which we attempt to purchase
instructional materials for our children, DCPS is literally
held hostage to the city. Because of this we cannot purchase in
a timely fashion such fundamental items as computers and,
indeed, textbooks.
For the record, because of this choke hold in our
procurement processes, there are now over 588 backlog
requisitions that do affect the education of our children.
These requisitions are simply caught up in someone's
bureaucratic pipeline. Again, if there is a problem, it should
be brought to the attention of our superintendent and not
allowed to languish. The procurement should indeed report to
the superintendent, not to the city. If we have the
responsibility, then we need the authority.
Given the 1997-1998 school year, DCPS has developed an
educational technology plan. It is my understanding that it has
been approved by the Federal Department of Education. It is
entitled Beyond 1977--Children First. We believe that this is
very critical and a true testament of the superintendent's
support by the Federal Department of Education.
As you also know, we are already on the Internet and have
e-mail.
Finally, I will quickly go through the other question that
you raised on teacher certification. We have been informed by
staff that all teachers employed by DCPS hold certification.
I will sum up. We are very pleased with that, and we wanted
you to know that on the record. We are doing all kinds of
things to indeed increase those student bodies.
On No. 5, I will just indicate that we do discuss the
budget, but I will say that the fiscal year 2000 budget that is
stated at 704 million is incorrectly stated. That is a total
budget including our grants and projects. The accurate number
is $627.5 million.
In terms of the charter school, that has already been
discussed, and this is in my testimony.
I will conclude that by stating that we have done something
else as trustees. Working with the Federal City Council, the
D.C. Chamber, and the Board of Trade, we have instituted what
we call two very active business groups that work with us to
help us bring in line the school system and the needs of our
business community. After all, we are training these young
people to go into the community as workers and not as those on
the dole. With this alliance, we are concentrating on school to
careers, literacy, technology, and the arts. It is an
incredibly fantastic bunch of people, and we hope that they
will be here at some point to talk to you as well. I thank you
for your time.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Cooper follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6579.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6579.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6579.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6579.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6579.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6579.032
Mr. Davis. Let me just ask for Mayor Williams and
Councilman Chavous, this idea about the procurement not
reporting to the superintendent and holding the school system
hostage. These are ongoing fights that we used to have out in
my county as well and is probably repeated across the country.
But even at the Federal level, we have Cabinet officers having
to do procurements through GSA. In some ways--Mr. Horn has
left, but he has tried to take a leadership role in trying to
make sense out of this.
Do you have any reaction to that in terms of the school
procurements not having to report but basically go through the
city and not having their own autonomy in those areas?
Mr. Williams. I could let Councilman Chavous and Connie
Newman speak on this, but I know that I was at a meeting of the
Authority----
Mr. Davis. I didn't see him grabbing the microphone.
Ms. Newman. We are going to talk to her later.
Mrs. Cooper. I am a volunteer, sir.
Ms. Newman. We all are.
Mayor Williams. But in conjunction with the Council, the
Mayor's office, the Authority, we have been bringing the
managers up to the Authority to look at what assistance they
need from the Authority in pursuing our management reform
agenda. So we had the director of procurement up there, and in
the process of talking about general procurement issues, some
issues were raised about the schools. I think the general
understanding there is that we were on the road to giving the
schools the authority and responsibility to get their job done
while still maintaining some central system control. I thought
that progress was being made.
Mr. Davis. Let me just add that I can remember just
anecdotally, which is a tough way to do this, where the schools
one year where they had the autonomy didn't order the books on
time, and we have gone through that as well. It's a balance as
we try to transition back. I think the Mayor and Council
probably want to be careful.
Mr. Chavous. Well, Congressman Davis, this has been an
ongoing problem. The procurement responsibility was taken away
from the schools last year, frankly, because the procurement
process inside the schools was broken. Books weren't being
ordered on time, and, again, that is something that predated
Mrs. Ackerman.
What we have found this year is there has been what I would
call a creative tension between the central procurement office
and the school system, so much so that we have an issue
regarding certain books being ordered even this year. Ms.
Newman and I, and I know that she wants to speak to it because
she is grabbing my arm here--but because this is something--you
hit the nail on the head. Ms. Newman, Mrs. Ackerman and I have
talked about this excessively. We really want----
Mr. Davis. You need to include Mrs. Cooper in your
discussion.
Mr. Chavous. She has been. When you say balanced,
Congressman, that is the key. Right now during this budget
process, we want to come up with a way to give the schools
enough autonomy so that central procurement doesn't bottleneck
the process. While they are reshaping their own procurement
capabilities, we want to make sure that there is legitimate
safeguards in the process. We are working through that, and I
know that Connie Newman wants to speak about it.
Ms. Newman. Just a second. I don't want to make light of
the observation that Mrs. Cooper made. We have had many
conversations with the superintendent. There is a new
procurement system going into place. There is always difficulty
with a new system in place.
My argument is that we need to deal in the short run with
the immediate problems of the textbooks and the facilities, the
Corps' contract, and then we need to see whether or not this
new system will work, because saying that it should move, the
authorities should move to the school system, does not address
the issue about how the school system will run it. They don't
have the people to do it either. I think that it's something
that there is always tension on this issue, and I think it's
worth a conversation, but maybe not too much.
Mr. Davis. I think this is a tension that exists in school
systems versus city councils across the country, and getting it
right--it is never right in somebody's eyes. I think Mrs.
Cooper has brought this to everybody's attention, and I think
we have aired out what the difficulties are in trying to work
together.
Let me ask, if I could, Mrs. Ackerman, I look at a school
system and try to measure results. I want to try to look at
where we were maybe a couple of years ago and where we are
today. You mentioned the test scores, and if you could get
those to us, I'd want to put those in the record. I didn't
really see the test scores. Was it in every school, was it up
across the way, was it uneven? But test scores are certainly
one way of measuring progress. Yeah, open the schools on time,
that's the way of measuring progress given where we were. You
look at the state of the facilities of the schools and a lot of
work has gone into that. That is a way of measuring progress.
What about safety in the schools? Have we made progress
there over the last year?
Mrs. Ackerman. We have put in place--we have. Our incidents
are down, and we can give you those, get you those.
Mr. Davis. Are they down significantly or just marginally?
Mrs. Ackerman. I would say--I wouldn't say significantly.
They're down enough where we can say we're making progress, and
we still need to put some more things in place, but they're
down enough where I can count that as one of the successes,
that we are showing some progress. In addition----
Mr. Davis. Let me just stop right there. If we're making
progress there, why are we replacing the contractor with the
police department? I'll ask Mr. Chavous, and I have a couple of
other questions for you but I just thought----
Mr. Chavous. I think that we are making progress, but I
think we're spending a lot of money. That contract is $9.5
million and we get 315 security officers, and in looking at
what other school districts are doing; namely, Baltimore and
New York, they have shifted that responsibility over to the
police. The key, though, is you have to have the right approach
by the police so they will work with the superintendent and
make sure that teachers and principals don't feel like they're
under occupation and that there is some seamless continuity
between the public safety efforts inside and outside the
school, and so the reason why we did it is really for more
efficiency and hopefully for not as much cost.
Mr. Davis. Well, I just don't want you to feel that, when
it comes to school safety, we do it on the cheap and I really--
--
Mr. Chavous. No, we're not going to do that, but the other
thing is, we felt that it was important to bring all of those
kind of efforts under one shop so that you had the school
security, you have police officers and you also have crossing
guards. I mean, you have the whole apparatus there working to
support what the school system is doing and working with the
local school.
Mr. Davis. All right. Well, we're going to be watching
because we've made measurable progress and now you're shifting,
and we want to continue to see that. I mean it's a Council
decision at this point and it's just from our perspective
something that we're going to want to watch very, very
carefully to make sure that we continue progress, if you
understand.
Mr. Chavous. I understand. Now it's on my head.
Mr. Davis. That is a nice way of saying it. I'll get back
for another round of questions, but I'm going to yield to Ms.
Norton and then to Mrs. Biggert.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to say that I
have been informed that Wilma Harvey, the president of the
school board, is ill. Two members of the school board are here,
Dwight Singleton, the vice-president and new board member who
represents ward 4, and Angie Corley, who has long been on the
board who represents ward 5. If we have any questions for the
board, I'm sure they would be able to answer them. We do have
Ms. Harvey's testimony however.
I have a question for--first for Mayor Williams and
Councilmember Chavous. First, let me commend Councilmember
Chavous for the oversight you are doing of the public schools,
and I know that in the budget discussions you are bearing in
mind the importance that everybody in this city attaches to the
children of this city. I have no doubt about that.
The Mayor testified--and let me also commend you both for
what is reported to be good discussions going on between people
who want a tax cut and the Mayor who wants to make sure that it
is prudently done and that sufficient investment occurs in the
city, and I informed my colleagues that there's every reason to
believe that those are the kinds of discussions that
legislators and the executive always have, and I'm very pleased
at what is the reported progress. So I don't have any problems
there.
I have a question that flows from the Mayor's testimony. He
testified that he was recommending eight schools a year be
renovated. A fourth--that's something that parents will be glad
to hear, because the ad--let me just add--the ad hoc way of
going at schools, based on which one was falling down first,
has been a real frustration in the city.
He testified that he desired a 4 or 5 percent raise for
teachers. All I can say is good luck. Because with the shortage
of teachers in the United States, with big city schools being
the last place many recent graduates want to come, my own sense
of what Federal Government can do, because I don't think cities
are going to be able to do this for themselves, is to help pay
such a premium for teachers so they can really recruit, I don't
see how you're going to be able to be competitive with easier
places to teach like Prince George's and Montgomery, and
Fairfax, but I see where you're going.
Your testimony said that your budget included $33 million
for children and youth for after school programs, noting that
that has not only academic effects but that's when most
juvenile crime takes place. Now, the reports are that--the
concern has been that we have a surplus, and the proposal was
to use the surplus to give back money to taxpayers and that
some balance was going to be sought between doing that and
taking care of what has been some disinvestments, to put it
mildly, in the district.
Now, when I say disinvestment, that is not to say the
District has not invested. The District is heavily invested in
its bureaucracy, hasn't invested in employees, but it sure has
had money, and it sure has invested it all around, and finally,
folks just got tired of that. But there's been lots of
investment in the district, but now that there's a surplus,
your budget talks about investments, Council talks about tax
cuts. I recognize that part of the problem was that this was
going to come out of the surplus, but then we're told, well,
don't worry, this will now come out of the operating budget, or
at least that's what the newspapers report.
What I would like to ask you, and with Mr. Chavous here, is
whether or not with the kinds of investments you're talking
about which would not be investments in the bureaucracy,
investments in eight schools per year and, and the renovation
of eight schools per year, a 4 or 5 percent raise for teachers,
$33 million for children for their after school program,
whether investments like this are still on the table, as you
discussed, taking money from the operating budget and dealing
with the tax cut and somehow bring it all in balance? I'd like
some indication of whether or not you--what you testified here
today, which was in your original budget, is going to be
possible, given the negotiations that are going on.
Mr. Williams. Yes, Ms. Norton, I'm actually confident that
we're making progress and that we can maintain this emphasis on
school construction modernization. We can maintain this
emphasis on our children. There are differences--we're working
out differences on how we program that and the structure of
that, but there's, I think, a joint commitment to our children
and our out of school programs for children, and then, finally,
that we work on sizing this tax plan and staging this tax plan
so that we can maintain these investments while doing the tax
reduction.
So, in other words, we can do it in a fiscally responsible
way, we can do these improvements we talked about and maintain
these programs out of operating, including the teaching raise.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chavous.
Mr. Chavous. Well, Congresswoman Norton, first of all,
thank you for those kind remarks.
This is one area where the Mayor and I in terms of our
investment in children and reinvesting in the future of the
people of this city, this is one area where the Mayor and I
have really been on the same page, and I can tell you that
while I'm one of the strong advocates for this tax cut proposal
in the Council that I would not have signed on if I thought it
would cut into some of these new investment opportunities, and
frankly, the discussions are going quite well between the Mayor
and the Council.
And we feel in this case we can have it all, that we can,
based on--we can't project too far out in the future in terms
of the surpluses because it is too much speculation, but we do
know that if things proceed and if the rebirth and resurgence
in this city continues, then we should be able to reduce the
tax rates consistent with the wishes of the Council, and while
at the same time continue with the additional $300 million to
the base in programs.
The Mayor and I met yesterday morning, early I might add,
on this $33 million children initiative. We're going to work
that out. We've talked about the teacher raises, and we're
going to find a way to work that out. The Council markup in the
committee was--stayed pretty true to what the Mayor wanted.
There were no cuts into that, and the feeling is that we'll be
able to make it all work.
I might add one other point is, this is part of the
creative tension that occurs in a democracy. I was really
disheartened to hear reports that because the Council feels one
way about tax cuts and the Mayor feels another way, it may
threaten home rule. Well, that's the essence of home rule and
now that we're having these discussions we're going to work it
out, and I think it shows that this city is on the rebound,
we're moving in the right direction with your leadership, and I
appreciate your remarks in saying, look, you all work it out,
but work it out and don't cut into the investment of the
people, and that's what we're going to do.
The Mayor and I are on the same page, and I tell you one
thing, the Mayor and I have really been fighting on this new
school construction. I mean, I quarrel with some of my
colleagues on how far we should go, and where we want to go as
far as the Mayor and I have suggested, that's 8 to 10 schools
over the next 10 years. So I'm more heartened by this budget
process than any I've been in my 6 years on the Council.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chavous.
Mr. Williams, I do think--I mean, there was some reports
about cuts and so forth. I do believe that there are, probably
are even as we talk about investment, and I know this is the
direction in which you're moving, even as we talk about
investment, there is no doubt in my mind that there need to be
further, ``cuts,'' but they are cuts in the bureaucracy.
I refer to them as streamlining because I think as you
consolidate, and if you build yourself a modern government, the
government is--there are going to be cuts. There are going to
be cuts, and of course, then there's going to be investments,
and this may all come out in the wash.
The only concerns, and ones you seem to be handling very
well, are the pace so that investment occurs along with any tax
cuts that also occur.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Davis. Thank you. And let me just add--I know the Mayor
has to leave, but Councilman Chavous, I appreciate you putting
into perspective, these aren't arguments over tax cuts, but it
is part of the process, and I don't know how it could threaten
home rule because you're handling it better than we do up here
on the Hill, but I appreciate your clarifying that because we
get this back and forth, somebody's not for it and somebody's
all for it or there's some big conflict.
And as we noted earlier on, when I met with Councilmen
Evans and Catania on the whole tax cut package, this is
something that is going to be worked out and it needs to be
discussed, it needs to be staffed out, and as we get those
numbers in, it moves around a little bit, but grateful to both
of you for your leadership.
Mr. Mayor, you're excused. Thank you.
And let me just welcome, if I can, 5th grade class, G&T
class from Rockledge Elementary School out in Prince William
County in my district, Ms. Norton, who are here today touring
the Capitol, and we appreciate you all being with us. This is
part of the G&T. They do the school paper, and they're kind of
the press corps. So if I'm going to get good press out there,
I've got to perform today.
I now yield to the gentleman from California, Mr. Horn.
Mr. Horn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and ladies and
gentlemen. It's good to see all of you because it looks like at
last we have a team and people cooperating and working with
each other, and that's certainly good news for the people of
the city and the Nation in which this is the world's most
beautiful city, and we want to keep it that way, and we want to
help you improve it.
Let me ask a few general questions on security in terms of
the schools. I come from Long Beach, CA, where I think under
Carl Cohen's leadership as superintendent, and I'm sure,
Superintendent Ackerman, you probably know Carl. He's done an
outstanding job, as have a number of superintendents before
him, and one of the things we had to grapple with was school
security, and I'd just be curious the degree, Superintendent,
of gang-related incidents on the playground or in the
classrooms, any way you want to measure it. I mean, could you
give us an idea of how much of that activity occurs to the
detriment of----
Mrs. Ackerman. I don't have that off the top of my head. I
have a lot of information.
Mr. Horn. So you can provide it for the record?
Mrs. Ackerman. But I will provide that for the record
because we do keep those kinds of incidents, also. But we have
done a number of things to address the issue of school security
and safety in the schools, including of course putting in
additional technology so that we can ensure that we have safe
environments. We have cameras in almost all of our high schools
now. The plan is to put them into----
Mr. Horn. Do you have the type of thing we go through at
airports which would detect----
Mrs. Ackerman. We do. We have the new metal detectors,
similar to what we have in our airports.
Mr. Horn. So that's controlled, where people enter through
one gate?
Mrs. Ackerman. Right.
Mr. Horn. Let me ask you about the clothes situation. Often
gang colors show up and that creates problems and all the rest.
Has any thought been given to a school uniform?
Mrs. Ackerman. Many of our elementary schools and about
half of our middle schools do have a uniform policy, and we are
encouraging that. I'd like to see every school, if you really
want to know the truth, implement a school uniform policy. As a
former principal, I do know that that does help the climate. It
helps keep the attention from what people are wearing, to focus
on what's happening in the classroom and the teaching and
learning.
Mr. Horn. You're absolutely correct because, you know, if
we could keep people from--young people from the peer pressures
of having to get the Nike shoes that the Jones and the Smiths
have--30 years ago, if somebody would be for a school uniform,
I'd say they're crazy, but given the times we live in, I think
it's just prudence. President Clinton came out to the Long
Beach Unified School District, met with people, was suitably
impressed with it, and he said in his remarks that Mrs. Clinton
had been telling him to do that for 20 years, even when he was
Governor, and it has worked, and we don't have that kind of
incident occurring over gang colors, if you will, and so I
would hope that you would be pursuing it.
Let me ask you, what's the teacher/student ratio in
kindergarten and first grade?
Mrs. Ackerman. 20 to 1 with an aide.
Mr. Horn. And I bet that's made a lot of difference.
Mrs. Ackerman. It has. In addition to the focus on
standards, 20 to 1 or lower class size without teachers who
teach differently without a curriculum standards who get us
increased student achievement, but I think it's a combination
of having the lower class sizes, as well as a really clearly
articulated curriculum and standards in place that's helping.
Mr. Horn. Now, it's your plan to move up the scale and
what--where does it go higher than 20?
Mrs. Ackerman. It's the highest at the--believe or it not,
it's the highest at the intermediate grades. We're looking at--
I see that in our local school plans with the new weighted
student formula, many of the schools are lowering their class
sizes, either--not necessarily with the teacher but with
another adult so that the class sizes will, will see them lower
probably next year by choice. The schools, remembering the
weighted student formula, firmly get a chance now to decide if
they want it lower than the District average.
Right now it's about 25, I believe, to 1, to 26 at the
intermediate level. I really believe that at that level they
still need smaller class sizes. It's really why I think our
summer school program worked very well. The class sizes were
down to 15 to 1.
Mr. Horn. Let me ask you, is there any parent involvement
in the selection of principals?
Mrs. Ackerman. Yes. We start with--in fact, in the last
year we have put in place a process for how we hire principals
and teachers and it's consistent----
Mr. Horn. I'm going to have to move because I see that
yellow light facing me, but I've got one last question for you,
and that is, to what degree is the educational system
coordinating its efforts with the recreation system and the
healthcare system in terms of the school grounds? What's
bothered me for 40 years at least is the schools are sort of
closed down at 3 o'clock, and we ought to have them as
community centers where both parents and the pupils could get
their appropriate shots or whatever it is that the health
department's going to provide to keep people healthy, and I
just--it seems to me with all those facilities it's a great
place to also have recreation programs and keep people, young
people, occupied. What's your reaction?
Mrs. Ackerman. I really do agree with you there in that
it's really important that we integrate those services and
provide wraparound services for our young people, and that
means that we have to then work with our other agencies. I know
that Councilmember Chavous is working with us with that, and I
want to say, though, last summer, that's one of the things that
we did in planning our summer school program is we brought
everybody to the table, and so we had the academic programs in
the morning and the extended opportunities for them to work
with our recreational programs in the afternoon, but our
recreational staff were at the table. They all were there with
us as we planned the program, and we're doing that again this
year. I'd like to see that extended throughout the school year.
It's important that we align our resources that way.
Mr. Horn. Well, thank you very much, and I wish you well.
Mrs. Ackerman. I do want you to know that I did take a
visit to Long Beach, and I was very, very impressed with the
programs that were there.
Mr. Horn. Thank you.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Horn, and I now recognize the
gentlelady from Illinois, Mrs. Biggert.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was thinking back
to the Chicago school reform when you mentioned that the
schools opened on time because of the start of the Chicago
school reform. That was the first time in years that the
schools opened on time, that there wasn't a strike and they
didn't come to the legislature to ask for more money. So I
think that is the first clue that a school system is on the
right track. Of course, we did put in some collective
bargaining barriers for a certain period of time to ensure that
everyone would be there.
But one thing that hasn't been mentioned too much, and I
think is so important to a school community, and that is the
involvement of the community in the businesses and the parents
and the teachers and the school boards. Has there been any
change in trying to bring in the parent involvement to a
greater degree?
Mrs. Ackerman. We have tried to do multiple strategies with
parent involvement, and for me, I really do believe, again, as
a former principal and teacher, that authentic parent
involvement happens at the local school site. That's where you
want parents involved. That's where--their investment lies in
those schools. The weighted student formula was one of the ways
this year that heard parents who had been involved in that
process, if they weren't on the local school team, and we had
parents actually developing the academic plans. They were
involved in the community hearings and the community meetings
that were held, both at the beginning of the process at the
end, and I think that's one way.
We have also put in place a parent affairs office. We've
trained 50 parents to go out and to work with other parents.
We're training another 50 so we'll have 100, a cadre of 100
parents, that will be training over the summer and working with
parents.
I think that we know the importance of having parents
involved. I think we tried to do a lot about getting
information out to parents about what we're doing, the
standards, and for instance, we'll be on the webpage and we'll
get distributed to parents next year.
We still again have a long way to do this goal because
often parents feel intimidated about schools, so we're trying
to change it from parent involvement to parent outreach so that
the schools are outreached.
Mrs. Biggert. We went back to such basics as that they had
to come to the school to pick up a report card.
Mrs. Ackerman. We did that, too. We also this last year
made it very basic that parents and students had to come pick
up their school schedules. We also put in place this year new
hours for parent/teacher conferences, and we saw a significant
increase in the number of parents who participated just by
changing the hours from 12 to 7.
Mrs. Biggert. What about the dropout rate, has that
changed?
Mrs. Ackerman. One of the things that I discovered upon my
arrival is the lack of the data systems that were in place. I
think we have faulty data around the dropout rates. So this is
really the first year that we have a clear methodology for
tracking attendance, at the high school levels in particular,
so we can really look at dropout rates. We're also looking at
now the data from the class that is graduating this year and
tracking it back to the ninth grade, but the data systems
weren't in place. So when I asked simple questions like what's
the dropout rate, I got different answers. I think you will see
that we will have that information after this year.
Mrs. Biggert. Is that involvement too where you've got
enforcement of your enrollment eligibility and residency
verification?
Mrs. Ackerman. I think all of that. Now that we have a
methodology in place to really accurately count and track our
students, we'll know which students started and which students
are not there, which students were not supposed to be there,
and we'll have accurate numbers, but a lot of what we're doing
and have been doing over the last year and a half really has
been putting in place those data management systems that
weren't there.
Mrs. Biggert. Are students able to go from school to school
then?
Mrs. Ackerman. They have open enrollment.
Mrs. Biggert. And is a public charter school, is that what
that is, or are they relieved from all of the legislation or
the rules and regulations of a regular school?
Mrs. Ackerman. They have some different----
Mrs. Biggert. I just wondered if it was more of a school
that might focus on math, like a magnet school, that students
would go there because they were--that was their interest.
Mrs. Ackerman. They generally have a theme. The public
charter schools have a theme.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Ackerman. Thank you. I also want you to know we went
to Chicago and some of the things that we put in place, I don't
see any reason we need to reinvent the wheel when there are
good things going on in public schools across the country.
Mr. Davis. Thank you. I'll just ask a few questions. I'm
going to ask a series of questions on special education,
because I think you candidly admitted that there's some
shortcomings there that we need some improvement in that area.
What's being done--what are you trying to do to produce
tangible results there?
Mrs. Ackerman. In terms of what are some of the new things
we're trying to do, what we really worked on in the last few
months, we had on loan from Montgomery County, we did--a
special assistant who has really worked very hard to put in
place a whole compliance structure for listening--for putting
in place and making sure that our hearings get heard in a
timely way.
The things that we're doing now is really looking at how to
put in place the assessment process at the school site, as well
as the IEP development. It hasn't--for some reason it certainly
is not a policy, I found out. It's been a practice that the--we
call them Form 6s, but it really is the method that triggers
the process, gets sent from the school to the central office,
and there's a central office team, and there are a variety of
teams--assessment teams. We've now put that back into the
school site because that's where it happens in school districts
across the country. I've never been in a place where the
assessments didn't happen at the school.
Mr. Davis. Well, getting ahold of special education will
have ramifications throughout the system, and I just ask that,
what's the current cost of special education in dollars as a
percent?
Mrs. Ackerman. It's about $170 million.
Mr. Davis. What percent would that be then?
Mrs. Ackerman. It's more than a quarter of our budget,
about 30 percent.
Mr. Davis. How much of that would you say is obligated to
out-of-school placements?
Mrs. Ackerman. We anticipate about $40 million.
Mr. Davis. And how about attorney's fees?
Mrs. Ackerman. Last year was around $7 to $8 million, more
than $7, less than $8.
Mr. Davis. Now, last year as you know, at the request of
the school system, legislative language was adopted which
extended the timeframe for evaluation and placement of students
requiring special education services from 50 to 120 days. Has
this change substantially reduced the backlog?
Mrs. Ackerman. We had a backlog of about 184, and today we
anticipate that that backlog will be diminished because it's
now in the schools. We've put quotas on this, and I don't
anticipate that this will be a problem in the future because
we've changed the way we are monitoring the assessments. In
addition, we have now put quotas to end the backlog of
assessment by the midsummer. So we will see that disappear,
too.
Mr. Davis. Now, do you think the capacity exists to deal
with special needs students within the school system itself or
do you think you're going to be substantially sending these
kids out?
Mrs. Ackerman. I think that we--what you will see next year
is a real effort to develop programs and to have programs put
in place at the different school sites, and we are aggressively
moving forward with that for next year. So I think that you
will see again, over time, that number diminish as we put in
place a way to monitor, even doing the annual evaluations to
see if we have programs in the school district, you will see
that we will have alternatives for parents. Right now, we don't
have the programs in place. We've got to put the programs in
place, and there are several that will be in place by
September.
I was just given a correction, the attorney fees last year
were $12 million.
Mr. Davis. OK. With regard to the capping of attorney's
fees related to special education cases, what's been the effect
of that legislation? What's been the impact in addressing the
backlog?
Mrs. Ackerman. I know it's lower than it was last year but
I can get the specifics for you and send them to you.
Mr. Davis. Well, let me say--tell you why it's important is
they've been up here.
Mrs. Ackerman. I know.
Mr. Davis. And there's a lot of pressure put on Members--
it's a very, very influential group with some Members of
Congress, and they've made a case to a lot of our Members who
want me to specifically ask you, if you're not saving
appreciable money on this by putting the cap on, then why do it
and not let the----
Mrs. Ackerman. OK. We will be able to give you those
numbers.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6579.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6579.034
Mr. Davis. OK. Has the school system contracted with
outside firms that represent the DCPS in the special needs
administrative process?
Mrs. Ackerman. I'm sorry?
Mr. Davis. Has the school system contracted with outside
firms that represent the public schools in this special needs
administrative process? In other words, are you handling these
administratively within the system or are you contracting some
of that out?
Mrs. Ackerman. We do some of both. We have contracted some
services out.
Mr. Davis. OK. I mean, there's nothing wrong with that. I
think, when you come into a system that's completely broken
down, you do what you have to do.
Mrs. Ackerman. Yes.
Mr. Davis. And this was a mess, and just getting it
stabilized, it doesn't happen overnight, and we tried it at the
congressional level to help you with some things.
Mrs. Ackerman. And it has helped, it really has, and I want
to, at the end of this year, show you how it has helped and
where you will see the differences.
Mr. Davis. Well, it's important we see that, and I'll tell
you, in the appropriation process, I suspect there will be a
run on the attorney's fees and the sooner you can get
information up here to make your case, I think the better off
you're going to be.
Mrs. Ackerman. I was just passed a note. We're now at about
$2 million, $2\1/2\ million. This time last year was at 7, so--
--
Mr. Davis. In attorney's fees?
Mrs. Ackerman. Uh-huh.
Mr. Davis. You're paying out. OK.
Thank you. Let me yield now to my ranking member, Ms.
Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have a
question for Ms. Newman, but before, just to followup on the
chairman's questions on special education, actually, as a way
to get into whether or not you have been able to deal with the
management problems of the school system under the present
managers.
Now, the report is that clearly you brought in somebody
from Montgomery County--you had in place a way you wanted this
matter dealt with. But in point of fact, you had to put three
administrators, or three managers I suppose, on administrative
leave and you did so. I commend you, where instead of hemming
and hawing when people haven't met, as was reported in the
newspapers. We can understand how troubled this area was but no
one said, I have to take real action. I mean the basics were
reported at least in the paper. They go to data correction, how
money is being spent, and you brought in a 90-day action plan.
I really wonder if you can really manage the school system
from the top that way, and my question is whether this
indicates that you have weak managers underneath you throughout
the school system, whether you wait until somebody does what
apparently the managers did here, which is fail utterly. You
just had to give them an F. Is there not a more proactive way
to, in fact, get a competent band of managers who from the get-
go who will set out to meet your goals and here, of course, it
was very serious. It was the most broken part of the school
system and the most disadvantaged children in the school
system, but are we in for a kind of management failure,
department by department, despite your own very focused
approach or do you have a plan to recruit managers who are able
and competent enough to, in fact, carry out your own goals and
plans?
Mrs. Ackerman. That is a good question. It's a difficult
question for me to try and answer. It is--I said it's been
troubling. It has been. In addition to looking at areas where
people--the competency levels, I find that I'm trying to break
through a culture of behaviors, lack of accountability, secrets
that people know that I had to find out, and so it's important
that I believe that I take action. We do have a 90-day plan
that's in place. Over the next--within the next 30 days you
will hear a reorganization, not even a reorganization, probably
a dismantling of the program as we know it, with some movement
of managers who are currently in place as we try to put in
place a structure that really does support the schools, as
opposed to a central office, bureaucratic kind of central
office structure.
Special ed is, you know, in many areas I have found this
culture of things that are there that I have not seen in any
other place, behaviors that have been there, sort of practices
that have been ignored or people turn their heads, and one by
one I've had to tackle them, and the way to tackle them is to
say, this is not acceptable and then to start over again.
I believe that in the next 90-day plan you will see the
starting over again with special ed. Now, that will put us in
some other--there will be some other rippling effects from
that, but I think we can handle that as we've done with
personnel----
Ms. Norton. What do you mean by rippling effect?
Mrs. Ackerman. Well, when you're making those kind of
drastic changes you have to have an infrastructure there to
support it. So, as you pull one way, another one has to be in
place, and it may not be as strong for a while because you're
putting new people there. So I think that unfortunately it will
take sort of day-to-day oversight for me until it's there and I
can move out and we have at least somebody there in the
directorship that can handle this.
Ms. Norton. Are you evaluating your managers the way the
Mayor, for example, has said he's going to put performance
goals on his managers and evaluate them so that people know up
front that they have to produce?
Mrs. Ackerman. Which is why----
Ms. Norton. Management in place in the school system among
managers?
Mrs. Ackerman. It is and I focused initially on principals
and other central office staff. You will see now the focus
squarely on special ed, and you will see changes in the
management structure within the next 30 or so days. By the end
of May you will see major changes.
Ms. Norton. Let me commend Ms. Newman and the Control Board
and Ms. Cooper and the Board of Trustees for their work in
trying to move toward a transition back to the elected school
board, and of course, the Control Board has a transition plan
and is trying to structure that in a very responsible way
because, of course, if the public sees any reversion to type,
that that would mean that all of the good work that's been done
would be lost.
There was some initial concern that the short and long
term, that there were short- and long-term goals but that the
first goal of developing a mission statement had not been met
on time. Can you tell us anything about whether that goal has
been met at this time and whether other goals are being met on
time and how the process of meeting the goals necessary for
transition are proceeding?
Ms. Newman. Well, I'd like to start by saying I am now
optimistic that we're going to be able to work through the
transition with the elected school board and the emergency
trustees.
What did happen was that there were two full day retreats
with the elected school board where they started working
through the transition plan. They had to become comfortable
with it. They also asked for two facilitators so they could
respond to talks about cultural change. That's what we're also
having to do with regard to the elected school board, and they
felt that it was necessary to spend some time with
facilitators, getting to learn how to work with one another.
So that was more important frankly than at the outset
meeting the date for having the vision and mission statement.
The vision and mission statement was discussed at the 24th
retreat, but that isn't going to have any meaning until they
sit down with the superintendent. What we have said to them is
that there's certain dates that are a must to be met. October
1, 1999 is the beginning date of the work on the fiscal 2001
budget, and they are to take the lead in that. They cannot move
on that date.
So they have now backed up from that date a schedule that
we will approve this week. They did not change too many of the
steps in between the development of the mission and vision
statement, a strategic plan with long- and short-term goals.
They need to work on their by-laws, but importantly, and this
is going to be tough, they and the superintendent are going to
have to work out a clear understanding of roles and
responsibilities, and when I say that, I mean it's going to be
tough because one person believes that they're micromanaging
and another person believes they're not micromanaging but
they're just carrying out their responsibilities and addressing
policy issues.
Now, some of these areas are pretty clear, and I think
we're going to have to put some of those on the table and just
say there's no debate here, this is policy, and you are in
operations, but I guess I would just conclude by saying there
will be an approved plan that alters the dates. The dates won't
be changed that much, but I think we all agree, those of us who
have spent a great deal of time with the school board and the
facilitators, that it was more important at the outset to
develop a way in which the school board worked with itself,
with its leadership and with the superintendent, and if that
didn't happen, all of the other goals on the transition plan
would not be met in a meaningful way.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
Mr. Horn. Let me pursue that question just a little bit in
terms of the management. Do you have exceptions for management
from being in collective bargaining or is there a separate
union for managers? How does it work?
Mrs. Ackerman. We do have a teachers' union, and we have an
officers' bargaining unit for managers, yes.
Mr. Horn. Now, that would include the principals of the
various schools?
Mrs. Ackerman. That's right and some of our central office
staff are in this bargaining unit.
Mr. Horn. What are the positions that are not in the
bargaining unit, assistant superintendents?
Mrs. Ackerman. Assistant superintendents are not there.
The----
Mr. Horn. Consultants?
Mrs. Ackerman. Right, but most of the central office
managerial positions are in this bargaining unit.
Mr. Horn. I think Ms. Norton made a very pertinent point
here, if you're going to get a real reaction of your managers,
you need contracts of 6 months or a year. We did that in the
California State University system, took me about 5 years of
lobbying the trustees to get it, and we had a lot of help
obviously of presidents, chancellors, so forth, but it turned
things around. We got rid of the civil service positions for
management. We had four overlapping categories. It started at
$10,000 and went to $100,000 in terms of deans, vice-
presidents, so forth. This is 10 years ago, and you just saw
the change, and this was incentives, and as I look around the
world, there are two countries that have done the same thing,
and that's Australia and New Zealand, where people are held to
those contracts and the recompense of the benefits and stipend
for salary and so forth is adjusted based on performance. If
they don't have the performance, they're out or are you stuck
with tenure situations on assistant superintendents and
everybody?
Mrs. Ackerman. No, we're not.
Mr. Horn. They're pleasure appointed?
Mrs. Ackerman. That's right.
Mr. Horn. Cause the only way you as superintendent are
going to be able to turn anything around is if you have that
authority. So do you feel you have enough or should it be
broadened into the management groups?
Mrs. Ackerman. I think that given--I think we have enough
to make the changes that we need, and there are strategies, as
you will see. I'm trying not to announce what we're going to do
here because I'm trying not to compromise the work that's
already under way, but I think we will be able to do what we
need to do in special ed in terms of the restructuring of it
and get some changes, and then we have put in place performance
measures at every level, and we will put them there.
Just the mere putting in, in the last few weeks, the quota
system of how many assessments have to be done and holding
people accountable to it, we've shown--we already are beginning
to see the results of that. We've reduced the 184 now down to
20.
Mr. Horn. Let me pursue another question here or do you
have a point, Ms. Cooper?
Mrs. Cooper. I'm sorry, Congressman. Ms. Norton, I was
trying to wait for Congressman Davis to return. I did get a
commitment that I could leave at 11:30, and I'm already late.
If there are some other questions, please feel free to ask. I'd
like to be excused.
Mr. Horn. Let me ask one more and then Ms. Norton will be
again asking questions. This question comes up because of what
we went through in the last Congress where computer firms all
over the Nation wanted us to change the immigration laws to
bring foreign programmers to the United States. Now, they do a
fine job, a lot of these foreign programmers. However, there's
a golden opportunity for minority students in particular, and I
hit the ceiling when I saw this, and I talked to our community
college presidents, a number of them, and some of the Silicon
Valley types.
Now, Fairfax County is sort of Silicon Valley East, and it
seems to me that the schools ought to be working very closely
with the people that are putting out both the hardware and the
software. Those jobs are $60,000 a year jobs on the average to
be programmers, and those would be great opportunities for
students from the District of Columbia schools, but if it's
going to work, it means there has to be a track in both
elementary school, junior high, high school, community college
and the 4-year institutions, and I would hope that frankly the
school system would do that and sit down with the people in
Fairfax County, and the chairman here obviously knows them all,
that he could lead you in the right direction but----
Mr. Davis. Will the gentleman yield? I mean, we've
offered--it's--you know, we've certainly offered to do that
many times with the city and for various reasons. I mean, there
are a lot of our people trying to get involved there, but
there's still a little disconnect, and hopefully we can improve
on that.
Mr. Horn. It's something. If you tell them where the goals
are at the end of the line I think a lot of students would be
encouraged and want to pursue those goals.
Mrs. Ackerman. I would like to send you.
Mr. Davis. If the gentleman will yield for a second, I'll
let you respond. We have 12,000 minimum jobs right now that we
can't fill that average in the $45, $50,000 range, and because
the public sector has so missed this, we have private schools,
computer learning centers, Strayer College, groups like that
that are coming up and filling the need that government has
missed the marketplace all together. It is sad and we've tried
to connect with the city.
So I think they're trying in their own way to do this, but
they look at economics differently, and so on, than we do in
the suburbs, and I think through a dialog this can--over time
they will wake up and see some of the opportunities, but I
appreciate the gentleman's comments.
Mr. Horn. Well, all I can say is, if they're serious about
it in this country, then educators ought to be doing this, and
if they aren't they're failing as educators. That's how I feel
about it.
Mrs. Ackerman. And I do agree with you. This issue of
technology in particular is a major issue, and I guess one of
the things I would like to share with you and send to you is
some of the things we have done just in the last year around
technology, which includes a collaborative grant that we did
recently submit with Fairfax County School District, and I was
really pleased when the superintendent called me and asked
would we be interested in collaborating with them, and we did.
So we will send you information on that because we're looking
forward to getting this grant.
Mr. Horn. Thank you.
Mr. Davis. Thank you.
Ms. Norton. Would you yield on the question you just
raised?
Mr. Davis. Sure.
Ms. Norton. Apart from the jobs that are available, and
this is something that's discussed over and over again, we
wired the schools, and I understand every school is now wired.
Mrs. Ackerman. Every school is wired.
Ms. Norton. I've not heard whether or not our schools, the
teachers in our schools are prepared to, in fact, handle these
computers and this technology. It does seem to me that one way
in which Fairfax County or anyone whom the chairman might
designate could be helpful would be in quickly getting teachers
so that they are not sitting in schools with computers they
don't know how to use and, therefore, can't do anything for the
children with. I'd like to ask you first whether or not
teachers have had any training now that the schools are wired,
and second, whether or not there's anything you think that the
region could do if the teachers do need any special training?
Mrs. Ackerman. Well, this whole issue of technology, I do
believe that if our children are going to be prepared for the
21st century, they have to be technologically competent, and
the way that really happens in a sustained way is with teachers
who understand it. We've had more than 5,000 of our teachers
and support staff who have gone through some kind of training
this last year. We put in place for the first time
instructional technology department. It wasn't even existent
when I came and it's in place now. We have now over six
different partnerships with area firms and companies, again to
shore up our focus on this initiative.
And then the last thing I'd like to say is we just recently
opened a new training facility down on 8th Street, in our 8th
Street building where we have 80 computer--it's called the
Cable in the Classroom training facilities. So we plan and have
major plans to have professional development over the next year
that will increase the contact that we have with teachers to
make sure that they're ready to fully integrate technology into
the classrooms.
So we did see this coming. Once the schools were wired, now
you got to work on the staff. Sometimes--we even have some
plans of helping our students help, some be facilitators for
teachers. Some of the students have had the experiences and
teachers haven't, so----
Mr. Davis. Maudine, if you want to add anything, you can.
Otherwise you're certainly excused.
Mrs. Cooper. I just want to mention once again that we do
have the alliance that includes many members from the
surrounding communities. One of those representatives is Marie
Johns, who is chairing that regional technology group. So there
is a definite connection between what the superintendent is
trying to do and the business community, public, private kind
of partnership.
I do have to go and I apologize, but I just want to say
thank you and Ms. Norton for your support of the college access
program. As a member of the board and the executive committee,
I think that we all in that committee and board do appreciate
your support.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much. I've got my 5 minutes and
I'm going to start talking. Technology came up and I was a
technology executive before I came to Capitol Hill. I had some
pretty strong feelings about it, and I don't want to place this
burden on the school system because, frankly, that's not been
the problem.
There are issues there where we can do a better job, and
you have a great challenge ahead and unlimited opportunity for
these kids that choose to go in that direction, and the College
Access Act, which I sponsored, is part of that because it will
make affordable educational opportunities, but more
importantly, it will allow the city to focus UDC into areas
where it can be a job creator and teach, if that's what the
city chooses to do.
But it's tough to do anything in this city because in my
opinion it gets--instead of looking at the grand picture and
looking ahead and around corners, it tends to be very
parochially oriented sometimes in the way decisions are made,
and Mrs. Ackerman, I don't consider you part of that problem,
but I think that has been the history, and we're trying to
break out of that mold.
Let me ask, I'm going to go back to something Mr. Chavous
and I talked about earlier in terms of we'd seen improvement in
safety in the school system, and I just had an opportunity to
call the company who has been doing that, and they were
indicating they'd been asking for meetings to find out what
they did wrong and haven't been able to reach your office or
Mrs. Ackerman's, and I would hope that--they are a Fairfax
County business--that there is some feeling that they were
picked out because they weren't a DC business.
And this would go back to the parochialism that has driven
so many decisions in this city, and I hope this is not part of
what has motivated you in this because I think that's a
throwback at a time when the city and suburbs are reaching out
to meet with each other, but there has been some rhetoric
throwing around about, you know, suburbanites.
Listen, our destinies are intertwined, and we have talent
out there that would love to start taking DC kids and educating
them, bringing them out to work in our companies and, more
importantly, some of our companies opening up offices in the
city, if you can make it affordable for them to do that, and
cut the regulation and so on that has deterred and driven many
of them to the suburbs.
That's part of the problem, and I just hope that has not
been a motivation, and since I've got you here under oath, I
thought it's a great time to talk about it.
Mr. Chavous. And since you do have me under oath, let me
assure you, you don't need to go there. That wasn't the
motivation at all.
Look, in all candor, I wasn't thinking specifically about
that company when I made that suggestion moot. I was thinking
in terms of the big picture, as you suggested the city should
do. You know, Mrs. Ackerman made a good point earlier when she
talked about----
Mr. Davis. I'm going to let you finish, but let me just say
this, we heard Mrs. Cooper earlier talk about limiting the
school's ability to make--to do their own decisions. We've had
this problem in Fairfax where--and I don't mean to say Fairfax
is the end all to do things--where we would have the school
system do one thing and the county do others through the police
and everything else. To the extent you have the police moving
in, they really report to you and the Mayor, not to the school
system.
Mr. Chavous. Well, let me say this, a couple of things, the
contract was going to end in October, irrespective of what we
did. As part of the----
Mr. Davis. That had an option, though, to be----
Mr. Chavous. Yeah, but I had nothing to do with the
decision on the contract. In fact, Chief Ramsey, if he chooses,
can choose to renew the contract. That has nothing to do with
the move we made. What we're looking at is an approach to
security consistent with what other urban school districts are
doing around the country, same in Baltimore, New York, and we
look at these best practices, and looking toward the future,
that's what led to the decision. It has nothing to do with
parochialism. It has to do with long range vision and planning,
which is something that you-all have suggested we do for many
years, and I've said to Chief Ramsey, he should work with Mrs.
Ackerman, work with the local schools and make a decision about
what is in the best interest for those individual schools as it
relates to security. So it has nothing to do with going out
to----
Mr. Davis. And that's all I want you to do. That's all I
would want you to do on that is to do what you think is the
right thing, but I was in the business for a long time, too,
with contractors. You ought to bring them in and let them know
what's going on.
Mr. Chavous. I told them we'd talk with them. I mean, we
were asked--I don't know if they're on the schedule or not.
Mr. Davis. Let me move on to a couple of other items.
Ms. Norton. Could the gentleman just yield on this
question?
Mr. Davis. Sure.
Ms. Norton. Because there was something that interested me
as well, without taking from your time, and take from mine if
necessary.
I think that it will restore confidence in security in the
public schools that the Metropolitan Police Department has
control of these safety issues, given the problems that you've
had with contracts and with what we know about people who are
sometimes recruited.
There's a lot of confidence in the police chief, and it is
true that given the mounting problems of safety in public
schools, big city school systems have been moving in the
direction that Councilmember Chavous indicated.
My only concern would be, since essentially you've got to
have a cop for example, you had them in the high schools--
whether or not you're going to be able to do it at the
appropriate cost, because one of the reasons people have gotten
these contractors is they hire these $8 an hour folks who have
very little experience, who have not done a good job in our
school system, I can tell you that for sure, on safety matters,
and I can understand why they hire them. You know, they hire
essentially security guards in big city school systems where
people are bringing in real ammunition. Parents, especially
after Littleton, CO, want to make sure that there's somebody at
the door who has had some real training.
My concern, Councilmember Chavous, would be, whether or not
the police chief might indeed, instead of using high cost cops,
be able to recruit people who might be in a more--I'll use the
word paraprofessional role--but still not cost us what it would
cost us to have essentially officers doing the work that these
contract officers now do. Is there any look at the cost effect
of the changes you were making?
Mr. Chavous. I think that's an excellent point. In fact,
when this suggestion was vetted to the chief, I mean, he didn't
immediately say yes, I want to do it. I mean, I think he did
some due diligence on his own, as did Mrs. Ackerman, in talking
to some of the other jurisdictions that have headed in this
direction, and he thinks he can do it, particularly with the
money that's available, and he did not rule out maintaining a
relationship with the current security company but having it
augmented with the better increased role of the metropolitan
police department.
The other thing that we're going to do is we're going to
have a hearing in June, and Mrs. Ackerman and the chief and I
are all going to sit down to figure out the best way to make it
work. I mean, I can't emphasize enough that this action was not
aimed at the contractor per se. It was really aimed at trying
to move the system forward and taking as much off of this great
superintendent's plate as possible. I mean, I think that her
focus should be on educational reform. It shouldn't be dealing
with the security contract.
Mr. Davis. Mr. Chavous, under that then, you wouldn't give
them back any procurement. You would keep procurement over on
the city side, and we just heard Mrs. Cooper say she wanted it
to go back to schools.
Mr. Chavous. Well, we haven't done that. I mean, that's
something--we're trying to work out a balance because we don't
want to put additional burdens on her. I think----
Mr. Davis. We just want it to work. We just want things to
work.
We heard testimony today that things are going in the right
direction on security, and now you are doing another--I don't
care what you do. We are going to hold you accountable. We
think this is, obviously, with the events in Colorado, this is
even heightened. But the school system has been going in the
right direction in the last year, and now you want to go in
another direction. That's fine. You may be able to improve it
and enhance it.
I just want to say to you, the cost--we don't want to do
this on the cheap. Having a secure school system is the most
important thing that you can do as kind of an anchor before you
can get to the other items. The surveys that I saw in terms of
why kids were dropping out was the safety and concern about
being safe in schools was one of the reasons that kids were
dropping out. That is an absolutely critical route to go.
If you have given it the thought and the reflection and we
have an unanimity among us on the way to go, that's all right.
That's fine with me. I just want to make sure that this wasn't
driven by other things which I see so often in this city.
That's all I'm saying. I think that I have said enough on it.
We are going to be watching and holding you accountable
appropriately.
Mr. Chavous. I appreciate that.
Mr. Davis. Just a couple of other things that I wanted to
bring out. We have an elected school board now that was,
frankly, dysfunctional for a couple of years. That's why we had
an advisory school board put up and everything. But now that
they have been elected, are there plans--and this is really
addressed to you, Ms. Newman--to start phasing them back in?
They were the first elected group in the city. Are there plans
to phase them back into involvement with the public school
system and how is that being implemented?
Ms. Newman. Yes. We have a fairly detailed plan that was
put together under the leadership of the dean of the School of
Education at G.W., Mary Futrell. There were representatives
appointed by Council Member Chavous, and the elected school
board and the appointed school board.
That plan outlines what needs to be put into place to
develop the leadership capability. That plan puts into place a
time line for developing a mission and vision statement, and
bylaws--especially, the relationship between the superintendent
and the school board and their roles and responsibilities. And
in the plan there is along the way before June 30, 2000,
additional responsibilities. At the outset we turned over the
lead responsibility on discipline and development of the
facilities' master plan. That development of the facilities'
master plan would be done in conjunction with the
superintendent and the Corps of Engineers.
The school board has started working on that. They have a
staff person assigned to them, and they will meet the deadline
on that, I'm assured of that. But the ultimate goal is to be
certain that by June 30, 2000, they have the tools to do the
job, but more importantly, the understanding of what the job is
and an agreement with the superintendent of the distinction
between policy development and day-to-day operations.
Mr. Davis. Thank you.
Ms. Newman. I should add that I'm optimistic that it will
work.
Mr. Davis. We all want it to work. We really do. We didn't
feel good about doing anything that would deprive this, but it
gets to a point where we had to step in, and we have some new
Members now that are untested, but in many cases weren't part
of the problems in the past and we want to make sure that we
transition. I think that's where this committee would come from
and Ms. Norton would concur with that.
Finally, just on the charter schools. That was briefly
discussed as we moved on, the implementation of charter schools
as being a part of the overall plan. They present a great
opportunity if it's done correctly, and they can always
sometimes go the other way as well if it's not done. What is
being done? How do the charter schools fit into the strategy?
Mrs. Ackerman. We certainly provide the support, but it's
really sort of a separate process now. The Board of Ed serves
as one chartering body, and then there is another body.
Mr. Davis. I guess my question is, are we being reactive?
If somebody wants to start a charter school and the school
board decides that they cut the mustard--or are we saying that
here is an area like technology where if we did a charter that
would focus on certain items that would bring in a consortium
of technology companies coming in and specializing in this that
we could be active and let's go out and recruit that?
Are we still in a reactive mode on this?
Mrs. Ackerman. I don't know because I'm not involved in
either of those processes.
Mr. Davis. That's my question.
Mr. Chavous. I can speak a little bit to that. We have had
several oversight hearings on what the public charter school
board is doing. They have been reviewing a lot of different
applications. I can tell you that what a proponent of a charter
school has to go through is extremely tedious. It's not easy to
start a charter school. They have charter schools set up in
terms of technology, hospitality, mathematics. They have all
kinds of specialty areas. I think they have become more
proactive in terms of the selection process and in terms of the
criteria they are utilizing in order to decide who to appoint
those charters too.
Mr. Davis. But Councilman Chavous, that is the way it works
in a lot of places. But to really make this work, you can be
proactive. You can say, here is a void that the public schools
aren't getting right now due to rules and regulations and other
things. You go out and you incentivize certain groups and say,
yes, we could really use a charter that would be in one area.
The city has done very well. Not just with charters, but
with some of the magnets that it has. I have been very
impressed with some of the kids I see coming out of Banneker
and coming out of Duke Ellington school for the arts. It worked
very, very well. But charters can serve that purpose, too, if
they are started appropriately.
We are happy to help you get the consortiums going. There
is a lot of interest in this region about helping provide
quality education to these kids. Charters are a great way
sometimes where you don't have to work within the existing
rules to do that. If you are proactive, and this could include
some input from Mrs. Ackerman in terms of these are areas where
we feel right now that the school system could use some help
because we have to deal with everybody in the school system and
there are some niches where if we had a charter here we could
be proactive, and these are the kinds of things in which we
like to help you.
Ms. Newman. I would just add that I have been meeting with
the representatives of both of the chartering authorities and
meeting with them together to ask the question, What is the
rationale and the criteria they are using to address the needs
of the overall school system? I think they are thinking about
that. At the outset I think their criteria was more along the
lines of what is a strong organization that can run a school
along certain lines.
If you look at the pattern now, many of them, the math and
science strategy for some of the schools says, we know where
some of the gaps are and we believe that we can contribute to
the overall school system. More of that needs to be done, but I
think they are thinking along those lines.
Mr. Davis. So the marketplace itself is starting to define
it. OK, that's all I needed. Thank you. Mrs. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The chairman called an
entire hearing on the school count. We are pleased to read
recently that the school certainly can count now. You have
75,483 students. But if I may say so, I always thought,
particularly under you, Mrs. Ackerman, that you all would learn
to count the students. I regard that as an administerial act
that somehow you get enough folks in place who have done it
before, that that could be figured out. But you have not dealt
with my problem. You really have not dealt with my problem
according to your own release.
Here I'm reading from the release, your own auditors who
conducted and performed the student census, as it is called.
Here I am quoting: ``identified continuing problems such as the
lack of student documentation being maintained by DCPS and the
public charter schools to verify residents.''
Going on: ``The individual charter schools have their own
standards for determining residency.''
Now, this is from your release. My problem has never been
whether there are this many more or that many more. My problem
has been where do they come from. As long as we--particularly,
now that we cannot do, and for the foreseeable future will do
no, commuter tax, the insult to injury it adds for folks who
happen to be coming into the District of Columbia to drop off a
child in one of our public schools and now a public charter
school is really something.
I heard the chairman asking about proactivity in our
charter schools. Well, you know, in Virginia and Maryland they
can't get charter schools at all. They are virtually blocked
there. So what happens? You may have people from Virginia and
Maryland seeing this new blossoming charter school movement in
the District of Columbia where we have more charter schools per
capita than any place. They could be ripping you off because we
still have this residency problem. I know that Mrs. Ackerman
went to great lengths, great lengths to indicate what
residences--what we should use to verify residency and the wide
open things like what church do you go to, those kinds of
things were eliminated. But if you have got almost 5,000
children in charter schools, and they are determining standards
for residency, I, at least, have no confidence that the charter
schools are educating D.C. students, and I don't even have
confidence that you are because they say, your own auditors
say, there is a lack of student documentation being maintained
by the D.C. Public Schools to verify residency.
So, I would like to ask you--perhaps Mr. Chavous knows
something about this--how you yourself can be confident that
you are overseeing this expenditure of D.C. taxpayers' funds
only on D.C. taxpayer children in public schools, whether they
are public charter schools or schools under your direct
control.
Mrs. Ackerman. We went through, as you know, an extensive
process last fall around verification. The problem that we had
when we talked with the auditors is what we kept as a proof of
that process. In some schools there was the checklist and
signed off by the person, the staff person, who verified.
Others, they actually kept the documents. There was some
confusion this year about whether or not the documents had to
be kept in every file. What we did have was, though, a
verification that they had been checked and what was checked.
What we have done for next year is to be clear about that.
That was the problem that we had. When we brought the auditors
back, I think they were satisfied that we did, indeed, have a
process in place and that we could verify. The problem we had
is what we kept in the permanent records. Next year that will
not be an issue. As it relates to what happens in charter
schools, we did not have that same process for charter schools.
There was a separate process.
Ms. Norton. Why was that, Mrs. Ackerman? That's not in your
best interests.
Mrs. Ackerman. Well, I know----
Ms. Norton. Public school money per pupil that goes to the
charter schools. Why wouldn't you insist that they, in fact,
use the same process that you had forced on the public schools
that are noncharter schools?
Mrs. Ackerman. I would like to insist that they do, but I
don't think that I----
Mr. Chavous. And that will happen. We have noticed that has
been a problem. With the escalating number of children that are
accessing public charter schools, there has to be some
continuity in the enrollment and making sure that the residency
includes D.C. residents.
In fact, Ms. Newman and I have been talking about the best
way to do it. If it needs to be done legislatively, it will be.
If it needs to be done in rulemaking, we will make that happen.
Ms. Norton. I very much appreciate that to clear this
problem up once and for all.
Could I ask you a question--by the way, I'm sure that you
would be concerned about this, Mr. Chavous. They no longer are
saying 80,000 students. So that means 4,000 disappeared just by
counting. Now they are saying 75,000.
You know what has happened to 7 and 8. That's where the
children were. That's also where much of the movement has gone
from. That's why it has been hard for us to believe that
somehow the movement out of the city has been so colossal but
the school remained exactly where it was. There is some
credibility restored because at least the number has gone down
so we can see that there is accurate counting.
Let me ask you, in light of that, about this difficult
problem that the school system has had. One, I want to know if
there is a continuing decline in student population and whether
you anticipate that that will be the case. We are gaining in
population, but all of the indications are that they are single
people and married couples without children. So, one, in your
long range planning do you see a decline in the student
population, and, two, what has happened to the properties that
were to be sold once you closed the school? If there is a
decline in student population, do you see any more
consolidation or closing of schools?
Mr. Chavous. Let me answer the first one. I think that Mrs.
Newman can answer about the surplus properties the Control
Board has been tasked with that responsibility.
We are going through this process of implementing a long-
range master facilities' plan, and one of the reasons why we
rejected the plan last year is it did not deal with the
demographic trends. We don't want to talk--we are talking about
building and modernizing new schools. We don't want to build
schools and modernize schools if there aren't going to be
children. So we are doing some statistical analysis to try to
decide where the growths are in this city.
It is true that the city is continuing to lose population,
but it is also true that that is being stabilized somewhat. It
is being offset to some degree, not to the degree that we would
like, by new folks coming into the city. My ward, as you
mentioned, ward 7, has lost more people in this city than any
ward in the city over the past 10 years. But we do see home
sales increasing by families even in my ward.
So the short answer to your question is, yes, we think that
the school population is still declining, but we don't feel
that it's declining at the same time. I think that the
renaissance in the city will be reflected in middle class
families coming back in. I think that with some of the inroads
we are making with public safety and even along the tax lines--
I think that's going to have, frankly, a heartening impact on
that issue.
I think Ms. Newman could speak specifically about surplus
property.
Ms. Newman. Yes, I can, and I can't speak in a way that I'm
very proud of. I think that most of us who have been involved
with the disposition of the school property up until about 2
months ago have not been that comfortable that the process has
run as smoothly as it should run. But what I think we all are
in agreement on right now is that we need to see which of the
schools are in process and where are there certain expectations
that there is property to be disposed of. And then what we need
to do is to revisit the policy and determine--what I started to
get along the way was more public sentiment that the school
system not sell the properties, but rather lease it. That
wasn't the policy at the outset.
So what I'm suggesting is that once we see what is in
process and we take care of those, up or down, that then we,
through the public process of the Council, revisit what is and
should be the policy, how much should there be a determination
of the community impact and other community uses, and how much
should only the bottom line be considered in the disposition of
the property.
Ms. Norton. I can understand your concern and, of course,
you are getting competing notions here. One thing that you
don't want to have happen to you is what happened to the city
in the past. The city has closed schools. These schools have
become terrible wrecks in communities. So if you close schools
and go through that pain, some disposition must be made of the
school.
As you say, there are options. If you don't want to sell
it, or you decide on second thought you shouldn't sell it, then
the only thing that I'm asking is don't let happen what has
happened in my neighborhood where the school site became the
focus for all of the dereliction in the neighborhood. It was
the public school site.
Whereas people were taking care of their homes, it was the
public school site because the public school was closed, the
site, years ago and nothing ever happened to it. So the public
thinks that having gone through this terrible pain and turmoil,
which, of course, was necessary to close the schools, that the
site is going to be taken care of. I would only ask that a time
limit be put on it, for example, to say that by the end of this
year a decision would be made on what is the disposition of the
closed schools, so that we will not go into the year 2000 not
even knowing whether it is going to be sold or whether you have
made another decision.
Mr. Davis. If the gentleman would yield, I would concur
with that. I would concur with that.
Ms. Newman. Mr. Chairman, a point of personal privilege.
Mr. Singleton is a member of the elected school board, and I
think he feels I haven't properly represented the optimism and
the support for the elected school board. I would like to ask
him if he can have a minute----
Mr. Davis. He isn't sworn. We invited the school board to
participate, and their leader did not show or give notice as to
why she wasn't showing. We will give him an ample opportunity
at another hearing.
Ms. Newman. I see.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no more
questions.
Mr. Davis. Mr. Horn.
Mr. Horn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think earlier in
response to a question from the panel, Superintendent, you
mentioned the open enrollment policy of the District.
Do you have data on last fall's results of open enrollment,
and has it been analyzed as to where a particular student was
and where that student is now going? And is that data
available, and have you analyzed it in terms of is this a bad
school that student was leaving from to go to what was
perceived by parents and perhaps the child as a good school?
And what can you tell me about the analysis of that data?
Mrs. Ackerman. Again, we are in the process. This is the
first year that we have put out our school profiles, so we are
looking at a variety of data, including where our students
attend schools. We will be able to, for the first time, take a
look at that as we look at all of the data we have compiled by
school.
There is movement across the District--and we can see
within each school how many students are out of boundary. So we
will be able to look at how many students are out of boundary
and continue, how many students migrate back. In the past, we
haven't kept that, we haven't looked at that data. We are now
compiling it in the new school profiles along with other data
that will allow us to look at it and strategically plan, but to
allow parents to look at it.
Mr. Horn. That is where I was leading. Have you thought of
a random sample of the parents when you see some significant--
sort of more than normal change? Either a person might have
bought a house in a different type of neighborhood or not, and
that--but the question is, if they are still living at a
certain address and changing schools, that ought to be perhaps
significant, and are you thinking of doing the survey to get
more information?
Mrs. Ackerman. This is the second year that we surveyed all
of our parents, and there are a variety of questions. Many of
them relate to the school and what is happening in the school.
Since this is our second year, we can now begin to compare what
parents said last year with the data that we have this year
when we get it back. In fact, the surveys are in, probably, in
all of our homes this week--or they will be by the end of this
week--and we are expecting them back.
We are going to do the comparison. We are going to use it.
I am a firm believer that the data needs to drive the decisions
in the District. These surveys tell us a lot. They told us a
lot last year and they will tell us even more about the
progress that we are making in our individual schools. We also
surveyed our students and staff.
Mr. Horn. I suspect that you and I could agree that the
principal sort of sets the tone for the school and makes the
difference. My children went to the D.C. schools when they were
desegregated, two-thirds black in the particular junior high
that my daughter went to. Superb education. Then the principal
retired for many years and the school started going downhill
because the successor never left the principal's office. The
previous principal was out there in those halls, was tooting
his whistle, knew students by name, all of those things that
connect in terms of encouraging students to get an education. I
hope you will be looking at that and maybe holding some
principals accountable.
Mrs. Ackerman. Last year we changed 39 principals. I do
believe that the victory is in the classroom with the teacher,
but it is facilitated in the principal's office. If you want to
see a good school, there is a good principal in the principal's
office.
Mr. Horn. As you know, that also means that the principal
ought to be backing up the teacher when there are discipline
problems. Too often principals have just been hiding behind the
desk. I don't know how you find that as a superintendent,
whether they are hiding under the desk or just behind the desk,
but I leave that up to your professionalism. Thank you.
Mrs. Ackerman. Thank you.
Mr. Davis. Mr. Horn, thank you. I want to thank all of you.
We may submit some further questions. Mrs. Ackerman, I know you
are going to get back to us with those test scores that we
asked for and we will make those part of the record.
Mrs. Ackerman. Yes.
Mr. Davis. Without objection, all written statements
submitted by the witnesses will be made part of the permanent
record, and the record will remain open for 10 days. The
subcommittee will continue to work with all interested parties
to achieve these objectives of making this a great school
system. And these proceedings are closed.
[Whereupon, at 12:23 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
-