Cautionary Wisdom on the Schools Takeover

When Alice M. Rivlin speaks, people concerned about the District of Columbia should stop and listen. Rivlin, as much as any single District resident in the past 25 years, laid the groundwork for the economically and fiscally viable nation's capital that residents now enjoy.

This week, Rivlin, who is director of the Brookings Institution's Greater Washington Research Program, testified before the D.C. Council on Mayor Adrian Fenty's school takeover plan. Her appearance went largely unnoticed.

Residents and opinion-makers should have tuned in, especially those who have lined up behind Fenty's proposal because they hate the school board and accept as gospel whatever Fenty and his deputy mayor for education, Victor Reinoso, happen to proclaim on governance.

On that issue, Rivlin has no peer.

It was Rivlin -- founding director of the Congressional Budget Office, former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, former director of the White House Office of Management and Budget -- who authored the landmark 1990 report that predicted the District's slide into fiscal chaos. She provided the blueprint for the city to climb out of that abyss. It was also Rivlin who, as chairman of the financial control board, steered the city through several consecutive years of balanced budgets.

Truth be told, Rivlin and the control board were the wind beneath the wings of former mayor Tony Williams, who soared to success on the strength of their labors.

Rivlin was resolute about public education in her council appearance this week, saying at the outset that she wished the "hearing were about how to make education more effective for the young people in the District, rather than who is in charge of doing so." On that score, she spoke for many residents.

Rivlin noted general agreement among city leaders on what the schools need: higher academic standards, modern equipment and renovated buildings, qualified teachers, and energetic principals with strong administrative skills who can weed out nonperforming teachers.

But getting to the heart of the matter, Rivlin asked whether changing the schools' governance structure will make the mayor, council and school board more willing and determined to work together to improve outcomes for children. She asked them to consider whether the change in governance is "worth the disruption it will inevitably cause."

Rivlin applauded parts of Fenty's proposal: a department to coordinate the education-related activities of all city agencies; placing all state-level education functions in a state education office; creating a separate authority to manage the modernization of D.C. schools; and establishing an ombudsman's office as a single venue for school-related complaints.

But there are inherent risks in Fenty's plan, Rivlin said, especially in the proposal to abolish local functions of the school board and to centralize decision-making authority in the mayor's office through a change in the Home Rule Charter -- changes she labeled "divisive."

"The new relationship," Rivlin asserted, "would do nothing to increase the competence of the [school system's] management or change its proverbial slowness to implement change." She acknowledged that the school board hasn't always functioned well but told the council that "it is not my perception that the board deserves much of the blame for the slowness of reform in recent years."