Advising Mr. Fenty

Writing in the Washington Post Outlook section, T. Robinson Ahlstrom, headmaster of Washington Latin School, a recently-opened public charter school in the District, asserts that "DCPS is dead. It's time to bury it," by replacing the elected Board of Education with a NYC-style Department of Education Accountable only to Mayor-to-be Fenty.

I don't disagree with Ahlstrom that DCPS' failure to educate many children is a tremendous tragedy for these children individually and the city as a whole. I'm not sure I buy his argument, though, that political will alone is the problem here. Suppose someone, say, a newly elected Mayor, had the political will and political capitol to enact whatever agenda he sought to renew the public schools in DC. (This would be an incredible feat because so many entities--Congress, the city Council, the CFO, Board of Education, etc.--are involved in making decisions about DC's governance, but it might actually be possible given the current dismay with DCPS' performance and the fact that Superintendent Janey seems to be losing some of his luster.) Even then, there's still the issue of what to do.

And, when you're dealing with a system that has DC's problems, that's not an easy question. There's nothing wrong with Ahlstrom's ideas (heck, I proposed moving DC's public school facilities into the control of an independent agency all the way back here), although I do think he overstates the case a bit when it comes to DCPS' financial inefficiency and teachers unions (and I'd love to see Leo Casey take him on about the latter set of arguments). But I doubt they're enough.

There are basically two schools of thought on how to fix DCPS and other troubled urban school systems. One is a sort of radical decentralization approach, which argues that the thing to do is to dramatically cut bureacracy, radically constrain the authority of school boards or central administration, give school site managers control over their budgets and schools, encourage and foster the growth of charter schools and other autonomous options, and push existing schools to become more charter-like. Paul Hill's portfolio model is something along these lines. This is particularly appealing in a place like DC, where 25% of the students are already in charter schools. The other idea is much more centralized. It focuses on centralizing and coordinating curriculum, professional development, and other key activities so that they are aligned across the system.

These two alternatives seem opposite, but they are not entirely at odds. The NYC efforts, for example, with which Mr. Fenty seems quite enamored, contain elements of both. As will, likely, any effective approach for DC. Certainly, expanding the number of high-performing charter schools, creating a more hospitable atmosphere for them, and giving more autonomy and budgetary control to better-performing DCPS schools would be a positive step. But the performance of many DCPS schools (as well as rapid principal turnover in DCPS) doesn't inspire confidence that their leadership should be given more autonomy. At least in the short to medium run, addressing the problems in these schools will require some sort of central bureaucracy that can align standards and curriculum in these schools, diagnose and address problems, and provide high-quality leaders and teachers. At a minimum, some sort of central leadership needs to make sure that the district's most basic systems--things like payroll, procurement, student data collection--function properly for these schools. There's also a critical central role for addressing DC's special ed crisis. Making the trains run on time won't improve student achievement, but if teachers and principals are spending all kinds of time trying to work their way around basic operational issues, that's a huge barrier to improving student learning.

The Williams administration was successful in addressing a lot of these issues elsewhere in the DC government, so capacity on these issues exists in the city, and perhaps moving control of DCPS to the Mayor's office can lead to progress here. But there are two concerns. The first is churn. The District's educational system has suffered from incredible instability in the past decade. It's been governed by an elected school board, the federally-appointed control board, and a hybrid appointed-elected school board. It's had seven superintendents during that time period. With this kind of governance and leadership turmoil, is it any wonder not many improvement efforts gained traction or produced results for DC's kids? One reason that DC's charter schools, on average, are doing better than DCPS schools is that the best charter schools have actually had a lot more stability in DCPS. In his book Spinning Wheels, AEI's Rick Hess writes about the dangers of reform churn, a never-ending cycle of reform efforts in urban school districts that are abandoned before they are even fully implemented, let alone have a chance to succeed. Shifting control of the schools to the Mayor would create tremendous turmoil and churn. That's not to say it may not be a good idea, but the potential benefits need to be weighed against the costs of churn, and the people Fenty selects to manage the process need to strive to reduce the negative impacts of churn.

The second danger is that governance changes can create the appearance of change without really improving anything. Giving the Mayor control of the schools is not in itself a good reform strategy. It's what he does with the control that matters. And there are a lot of good things a Mayor can do, like better connecting education and other social services in the District to address the many health, family, and other problems kids carry with them to school.

A lot of what needs to happen to improve schooling in DC is not flashy, bullet-pointable, initiatives. A lot of it is pretty basic, day-to-day stuff: making the trains run on time, hiring and developing good people, holding people accountable, getting a good curriculum, sticking with it and refining it to make it work.