Congress should not be imposing laws on the District of Columbia on purely local matters such as our public education system.
Last, but certainly not least, no coherent planning occurs between DCPS and the PCSB on the types of educational opportunities offered across the city or the number of seats needed for the future expected student population.
While there are no easy solutions to an educational landscape that has been created haphazardly over the past twenty years, one critical step in the right direction is to ensure there is comprehensive planning between DCPS and the PCSB on the opening of new schools. Comprehensive planning can help ensure scarce financial resources are more efficiently and effectively spent and minimize duplication of services. Moving toward greater coordination of all publicly funded schools gives us a start at a more rational planning approach regarding the programmatic offerings at our schools and where these schools are best located. As long as the PCSB continues to be an independent chartering authority, there is nothing to compel them to engage in comprehensive planning.
While Mayor Bowser has called for a citywide vote on statehood in November, we know this will be an uphill battle in the Republican-controlled Congress. In a related demonstration of the demand for more local control, the District is planning to enact the coming year's spending plan without congressional approval. Now seems like the opportune time for the Mayor and the Council to seek changes to the School Reform Act that will give the District the ability to make comprehensive decisions over all the public schools in our city.
Next > Does Testing Produce Better Teachers–or Just More Contracts for Consulting About Them?
Wonderful summation and a great suggestion to the Mayor.
For what it's worth, I've written about this problem for many years, including on this list more than 10 years ago.
And the problem with what we might call a lack of adequate or comprehensive capital planning for the public schools is but one element of under-developed public processes for capital improvements planning and budgeting more generally.
In most other jurisdictions, the public approval process for capital budgeting is a separate process from the annual appropriations process for what other jurisdictions call an operating budget. In short, in DC they are combined.
Plus, in the other jurisdictions, capital planning is done on a six year running basis, with two year plans, and ongoing monitoring. Usually the capital plan is approved by a "planning commission" or "planning board" before it is referred to the legislative branch. The process of the capital budget planning process is an Executive Branch function.
It's not that the Mayor's office or the CFO's office don't have capital planning units (and DDOT, but that is because the use of federal transportation monies triggers very detailed and thorough capital planning requirements), it's that the oversight and approval process is particularly weak.
I also argue that matters concerning tax abatements, eminent domain, alley closing, and property disposition should be considered capital matters and reviewed in the same process as capital budgeting review and approval, with final approval of recommendations made by Council.
Note that the US Federal Government has the same problem in the way in handles capital planning, which is why GSA attempts to do property trades and other machinations, when they don't believe that Congress will handle a matter directly and what I would call properly. This has been an issue with the FBI building.
FWIW/2, Council and the Mayor/Executive Branch have not ever really evinced to me an interest in making these processes much more robust, open, transparent, and public.
Where were you when DCPS Henderson announced a male Children of Color only (segregated) High School last year that would be "privately funded only". Crickets, nothing, to scary to talk about? No one had the courage to speak out against public segregation Jim Crowe returning.
Put professional services in ALL the middle schools and require parent involvement and training to keep at risk children engaged in education. s this so hard to understand? This will lower the drop out rates and engage families in a healthier life.
Stop beating up the Charter Schools and stop trying to force families into less healthy choices. You lost that war years ago. Start getting all the families (more than just 4 or 5) involved in bettering the Middle Schools and you will see success.
Reginald, thanks for taking the time to read my blog and to comment on it. I think we agree on a lot more than you might think. Next year DC will have two new high schools, the Empowering Males of Color school that DCPS is opening, and the Washington Leadership Academy that the Public Charter School Board approved. I wonder why both of these schools are opening when we have invested hundreds of millions of dollars modernizing our city's high schools, and we have high schools that aren't fully enrolled. Rather than opening these new schools, I'd much rather see the dollars invested in staffing our existing schools, and providing the services at risk children need. It takes many hands to make our schools work and staffing is critical.
I agree with you that parent involvement is extremely important, and frankly wish there was much more parent involvement across the city. You're absolutely right we need parent involvement for our schools to be successful. I would love to learn more from you about how we can get more parents involved.