By V. Dion Haynes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 17, 2006; B02
A U.S. Senate committee has approved legislation that would require the D.C. school board to relinquish its state-level functions, including its handling of millions of dollars in federal funds and its oversight of reform efforts for low-performing schools.
The measure's sponsor said she was partly motivated by an April federal declaration that the school system was at "high risk" of mismanaging funds.
The measure calls for the school board, the D.C. Council and the mayor to work together to develop and pass legislation that would transfer those functions to another entity -- a new authority or perhaps an existing agency such as the State Education Office, which is under the mayor's office.
The Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday added the provision to the D.C. spending bill for fiscal 2007, which is scheduled to reach the Senate floor this fall. Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) and several board members are backing the idea.
Unlike other systems across the country, the D.C. school system operates as both a local and a state education agency. Both roles are overseen by the school board and Superintendent Clifford B. Janey and involve many of the same administrators.
As a state agency, the board funnels $120 million a year in federal funds to its schools, develops learning standards, oversees teacher certification, sets the proficiency levels that students must attain under the federal No Child Left Behind law and determines the intervention needed for schools failing to reach those benchmarks, among other responsibilities.
Supporters of the Senate measure say the board and the superintendent essentially are regulating themselves under the current arrangement, a conflict of interest. They contend that school officials can't be objective in determining, for example, the consequences their low-performing schools should face.
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who drafted the measure in consultation with school board and council members, pointed to the "high-risk" designation among reasons for the move. The department cited such deficiencies as lack of timely audits and poor record-keeping. The only other places that have received the high-risk designation are Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and American Samoa.
"In every other jurisdiction in America, we have a state board and local school districts," said Landrieu, a member of the D.C. appropriations subcommittee. "We want them to come up with legislation to clearly separate" those roles, she said.
But in a school system in which the superintendent answers to the school board, the council, the mayor and Congress, some wonder whether creating another authority would add to the problem of fractured governance.
"If it results in more bureaucracy and more layers of agencies for the system to report to, this will make the work of the district harder and not easier," said Michael D. Casserly, executive director of the Council of the Great City Schools, a Washington-based organization that represents large, urban school systems. "A conversation that adds to the levels of distrust and bureaucratic isolation will probably not help."
A 1999 study of the school system's governance structure by the D.C. Appleseed Center for Law and Justice expressed caution about establishing a separate agency to perform state-level functions. State education agencies, it said, sometimes "create problems" by issuing unnecessary mandates that cost schools time and money.
Under the Senate legislation, the school board would be required to hire consultants to draft a measure calling for the separation of the system's state and local roles.
Among the unresolved issues is who would fund the budget of a new governing authority and its staff, although some officials suggested that federal money might be available to cover some expenses.
Elected officials and education policy experts in the District have long debated separating powers in the school system. In 2000, during the financial control board era, the city shifted several state-level functions -- including oversight of the per-student funding formula, student enrollment and residency verification, and some nutrition programs -- from the school system to the mayor's newly established State Education Office.
Several council efforts to shift more state-level duties from the school board to the State Education Office were largely opposed by the board.
Now, with state-level duties taking up more of the board's time, several of its members are supporting the Senate proposal.
"I strongly support the language" in the legislation, said Tommy Wells (District 3), who plans to introduce a resolution tomorrow endorsing the proposal. "We're both a city and a state. . . . This is a way to improve accountability."
Board member JoAnne Ginsberg said: "For too long, people have been working partly for the local education agency and partly for the state education agency. It's confusing. The lines are blurred, and this should not be."
Williams's spokesman, Vince Morris, said: "The mayor sees no higher priority than improving the performance of our school system and helping more children to learn. If a task force determines that adjusting the structure of the school board allows money to be spent more efficiently, we say bring it on."
The measure also has the support of council member Kathy Patterson (D-Ward 3), who chairs the Committee on Education, Libraries and Recreation.
Janey, who in recent months has moved to better delineate and separate state and local roles, said he, too, supports the proposal. But he said other city agencies with similar conflicts should be included.
"What's good for the goose is good for the gander," he said. The mayor and council "have state functions, too. I don't think the legislation went far enough."