...The redundancy in education governance in Washington is almost comical. D.C. could do a lot worse than look to Hawaii for some ideas on having a unified state/school district structure since there is only one school district in Washington in the first place.
I've got to disagree here. If we were having this conversation in, say 1995, the last time Congress considered major legislation aimed at reforming DC schools, I'd probably agree with this analysis. But the problem is that, thanks to the DC School Reform Act of 1995, we don't actually have only one school district in Washington. We've got more than 50, and most of the are public charter schools, which, in DC, are legally their own local education agencies, or LEAs.
Because DCPS has both state and local education agency roles, it actually has to carry out state-level responsibilities--such as distributing some federal grant funds and running the "statewide" accountability and assessment system--that impact charters as well as traditional schools, including charter schools authorized by the Public Charter School Board (PCSB), over which DCPS, as an LEA, ought to have no authority. This can create serious conflicts of interest, because DCPS as an LEA competes with charter schools. The controversy over Supt. Clifford Janey's suggestion, earlier this year, that he wanted to use his authority as State Schools Officer to intervene in low-performing charter schools , including those authorized by the PCSB, is a good recent example of how the combined state/school district role for DCPS is problematic when charters are involved. There are also legitimate concerns that it's a conflict of interest for DCPS to have state responsibilities for holding itself accountable as a local school district.
Making DC a single state/school district like Hawaii would only exacerbate these problems. While Hawaii has charter schools, its charters are substantively different from those in DC: They are authorized by the Hawaii LEA/SEA, not an independent authorizer like the Public Charter School Board, and they do not have the legal and financial autonomy that DC charters do. And because of a relatively low charter cap in Hawaii, that state's charters are not currently the competitive threat to existing public schools that they are in DC.
In 2000, Mayor Williams established the State Education Office under his control to help deal with some of the new complexities that emerged in public education in DC as it moved from a single LEA system to one offering both DCPS and a host of public charter schools. The SEO monitors enrollment for both DCPS and charters, develops the uniform student funding formula used to allocate funds to the schools, oversees school nutrition programs, and also carries out some state-level higher education functions. But the combination of programs it carries out is rather eclectic, and it doesn't have most of the powers of a regular state education agency.
Based on some of the discussions floating around town right now, I wouldn't be surprised if what we saw happen with DC school governance in the next year or so would be creation of a real , separate State Education Agency, under the control of Mayor Fenty, that would have the responsibilities of a typical SEA with regard to both charters and DCPS. (This is pretty similar to what Casserly's op-ed is calling for.) Such an arrangement would have a number of benefits. It could give Mayor Fenty a significant role in holding DC's schools accountable and influencing education in DC without creating the huge operational and political disruption that shifting the day-to-day management of DCPS schools to the mayor would do. A smart plan to create a Mayor-controlled SEA would shift traditionally problematic areas in DCPS, such as out-of-district special education placements for high-needs students, and facilities, to DCPS. Legislation could also be written to give the Mayor, as SEA, power to take over chronically low-performing schools, with or without the Board of Education's consent. And, considering the vacuum created by the Board of Education's recent decision to surrender its role as a charter school authorizer, a Mayor-controlled SEA would be a great potential replacement for the board as a charter school authorizer. Although relatively few Mayors have chartering authority, those who do, like Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson, have a promising record. DC could benefit from following this lead.
It's also increasingly looking like this is an idea most of the key parties could get behind politically, possibly avoiding the "donnybrook" Casserly fears a bid for full-out mayoral control would spark. There's already legislation in the U.S. Senate that would require the Board of Education to develop recommendations to shift its state-level functions to another entity, which observers seem to think in practice would most likely be the SEO. The Council's held hearings on the idea. At the same time could also been framed as a token step towards making DC more like a "real state," which might appeal to DC-statehood advocates. It would preserve a role for the elected school board, mitigating home rule concerns, but still give Fenty much greater control. It would give newly-elected reformist school board leaders like Robert Bobb and Lisa Raymond a chance to work for reform, while also building a foundation for a mayoral role that could be more easily expanded to full control if reform efforts on the board fail.
Update: Andy clarifies his comment a bit. I'd just like to add that, despite my skepticism a Hawaii-like model per se makes sense for DC, if anyone would like to fund some research travel for me to go to Hawaii this winter, investigate the state/district model in practice, and bring back recommendations for what DC can learn from it, I'd be all over that.
No comments:
Post a Comment