U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

27–852 PDF 2006

MAKING THE GRADE? EXAMINING DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS REFORM PROPOSALS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

APRIL 28, 2006

Serial No. 109–146

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

——— ———

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

DAVID MARIN, Staff Director

LARRY HALLORAN, Deputy Staff Director

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on April 28, 2006 .............................................................................. 1

Statement of:

Johnson, Henry L., Assistant Secretary of Education for Elementary and

Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, accompanied by

Hudson La Force III, Senior Counsel to the Secretary; Dr. Clifford

Janey, superintendent, District of Columbia Public Schools; John

Musso, chief financial officer, District of Columbia Public Schools;

Charles Willoughby, inspector general, District of Columbia, accompanied by William DiVello, assistant inspector general for audits, Office

of the Inspector General, District of Columbia; and Cedric Jennings,

District of Columbia Public School graduate .............................................. 11

Janey, Clifford 21

Jennings, Cedric 56

Johnson, Henry L. 11

Musso, John 36

Willoughby, Charles 43

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Maryland, prepared statement of ............................................................ 78

Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Virginia, prepared statement of ................................................................... 4

Janey, Dr. Clifford, superintendent, District of Columbia Public Schools,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 23

Johnson, Henry L., Assistant Secretary of Education for Elementary and

Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 14

Musso, John, chief financial officer, District of Columbia Public Schools,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 38

Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, a Delegate in Congress from the District

of Columbia, prepared statement of ............................................................ 9

Ruppersberger, Hon. C.A. Dutch, a Representative in Congress from the

State of Maryland, prepared statement of .................................................. 82

Willoughby, Charles, inspector general, District of Columbia, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 45

(1)

MAKING THE GRADE? EXAMINING DISTRICT

OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS REFORM

PROPOSALS

FRIDAY, APRIL 28, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 2154,

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tom Davis (chairman of the

committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Tom Davis, Cummings, and Norton.

Staff present: David Marin, staff director; Larry Halloran, deputy

staff director; Keith Ausbrook, chief counsel; Rob White, communications director; Shalley Kim, professional staff member; Teresa

Austin, chief clerk; Sarah D’Orsie, deputy clerk; Kim Trinca, minority counsel; Earley Green, minority chief clerk; and Jean Gosa,

minority assistant clerk.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The committee will come to order. Welcome to today’s hearing on the District of Columbia’s public school

system.

The District of Columbia Financial Responsibility Management

Assistance Authority was put in place by Congress in April 1995

to turn around the city during a financial crisis.

The control board conducted an extensive review of the District

of Columbia Public Schools and concluded that the system was in

disarray. ‘‘The deplorable record of the district’s public schools by

every important educational and management measure, has left

one of the city’s most important public responsibilities in a state of

crisis, creating an emergency which can no longer be ignored or excused,’’ the Control Board said. ‘‘DCPS is failing in its mission to

educate the children of the District of Columbia in virtually every

area and every grade level, the system has failed to provide our

children with a quality education in a safe environment in which

to learn.’’

Today, at a time when so many things are going right in the Nation’s Capital, DCPS continues to be plagued by management problems, declining enrollment, crumbling facilities, escalating violence

and substandard academic achievement.

The fact is, the District’s improved health cannot be sustained

without a better public school system. Families are left with

unenviable or unattainable choices, move out, try to switch to charter schools with mixed records themselves, win the lottery for a

scholarship for the private school through the DC School Choice

2

program, or succumb to the fact that their children are going to

have to succeed in spite of, rather than due to, the educational climate.

It is not impossible to succeed in D.C. public schools, but the

journey is difficult. One of our witnesses today, Cedric Jennings, is

here to talk about those obstacles and how he was able to overcome

them.

The number of D.C. schools identified as in need of improvement

increased from 15 in 2003 to 71 in 2004, and 80 in 2005. According

to the Nation’s report card, a report released in 2005 by the National Center for Educational Statistics, only 10 percent of fourth

graders and 7 percent of eighth graders are proficient in mathematics. And only 11 percent of fourth graders and 12 percent of

eighth graders are proficient in reading.

DCPS is currently at the lowest levels of State educational agency performance as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Superintendents have come and gone with different ideas about

how to reform the system. Past experience demonstrates that

change cannot happen in a relatively short period of time, and

progress will not be easy.

No plan can succeed without perseverance and stable leadership.

Superintendent Clifford Janey gives D.C. a chance at stability. Dr.

Janey has the burden to fix many problems that predate his arrival.

Almost a year ago, Superintendent Janey testified before this

committee and discussed a new strategic plan called the ‘‘Declaration of Education: Keeping Our Promise to the District’s Children.’’

The initiatives aimed at raising academic achievement in every

classroom and in every school.

There are three goals that guide the declaration, academics,

management systems and communication, including the plan as a

framework to raise student achievement by retaining and training

high quality teachers and principals, engaging parents and communities, improving business operations in school facilities, and implementing new curriculum standards.

We are interested to hear today how these plans are working.

But we hold this hearing against the backdrop of a decision of the

U.S. Department of Education to declare D.C. schools a high risk

grantee, once again highlighting the weak managerial and financial

controls in the system. The high risk designation means that special conditions will be imposed on all existing grants issued by the

Department to DCPS, and if corrective action is not taken, the loss

of Federal dollars is a real possibility.

I am interested to hear about how this designation came about,

how this move can perhaps benefit D.C. students in the long run

by forcing changes in the public school system and by bringing

more widespread community resources to it.

We also need to know what exactly is at stake and what is expected of DCPS. According to the Department, DCPS failed to meet

accountability time lines and repeatedly submitted reports late.

The Department also faulted DCPS’s inability to monitor federally funded programs and services and highlighted systematic external control weaknesses.

3

In addition, the district has to do a better job incorporating the

provisions of No Child Left Behind into planning and implementation for systemwide change.

Failure to make progress as defined by the law carries specific

and serious consequences. If the Department determines that

DCPS has not made substantial progress or met special conditions,

then the Department can consider discontinuing all or part of one

or more grants for the public school system or take other remedial

action.

This hearing gives us the opportunity to examine the current situation and discuss the resources needed to meet the standards set

by Federal law.

I also hope to re-examine how the district exercises State and

local functions in the educational realm. No Child Left Behind requires State education agencies to exert authority over local school

districts.

Accountability, school improvement, teacher quality, and increased reporting requirements are four core features. There are

four areas that the D.C. needs to significantly improve. The district

must navigate a complex relationship between State and local educational functions. DCPS is both the State and local educational

education agency, and therefore monitors its own Federal compliance. Previously, DCPS was the only local school district in the

District of Columbia. However, there are no charter schools that

serve a significant population of students.

Under this arrangement, the DCPS superintendent also serves

as the chief state educational officer responsible for carrying out

State level functions, including oversight of DCPS operations. The

responsibility is that in almost every other jurisdiction would be

carried out by a separate State educational agency.

While public charter schools are not under the auspices of DCPS,

and are each considered an independent local education agency for

State-level purposes, the school system performs State-level functions on their behalf.

Faced with pressures to have State-level functions performed by

an entity other than DCPS, the District created the Office of the

State Education, allowing public school system to concentrate its

resources on improving teaching and learning.

Currently, the SEO exercises limited State functions, auditing

annual enrollment, issuing rules for annual verification of D.C.

residency, studying and making recommendations on the uniform

per student funding formula, and State agency functions for the

Department of Agriculture grants.

I am eager to learn how reform efforts are proceeding and how

students, teachers, administrators parents and elected officials can

support the plan.

As policymakers, educators and citizens, we have to determine

our priorities and marshal the right resources. I know we are all

hoping to give all D.C. students a chance at a brighter future. I

would now recognize Ms. Norton for her opening statement.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis follows:]

4

5

6

7

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate

your courtesies in agreeing to hold this hearing only after the superintendent had gotten his bearings and outlined his comprehensive reform plans for oversight by the Mayor, school board, D.C.

Council, and the residents themselves.

By the time Superintendent Clifford Janey became superintendent in 2004, the D.C. public schools had been without a superintendent for so long and had slipped into such steep decline, many

feared that the Nation’s Capital could not attract a competent superintendent equal to the considerable task.

We are fortunate that Superintendent Janey took the job and

that his efforts have quieted those fears. But Dr. Janey had to be

a brave and confident man to come to the District with a determination he has shown to pick up the pieces of a shattered school

system and take on the task of recreating the D.C. public school

system.

The D.C. schools, like the schools of every local jurisdiction, constitute the very essence of what is meant in the United States by

local control and self-government.

But the District, like other public schools, received some Federal

funds, particularly title 1, IDEA, and some grant funds.

This committee’s approach has been consistent with the balance

between home rule and legitimate congressional concern and interest in DCPS. I appreciate that balance, that balance along with the

tough criticism the D.C. public schools have gotten and deserve

from this committee.

I wish I could say that the Department of Education had shown

the same courtesies. We were shocked to learn a couple of months

ago through a staff conference call that the Department officials

had notified Superintendent Janey and relevant Members of Congress that day that DCPS would be placed in a ‘‘high risk category’’

and that the Superintendent had been presented with a letter to

be released at 4 p.m. that very day informing the press.

The Department of Education was so anxious to hang the high

risk label on the District schools endangering Federal funds that

it rushed forward without any semblance or pretense of orderly or

due process.

When questioned, the Department could name no other school

system in the continental United States that had received this designation, but when pressed, indicated that perhaps one or two territories had been so designated.

Notably, no State or jurisdiction that had two Senators was

named.

This much seems sure. The Department of Education would have

been reluctant to pull such a surprise attack on any of the big cities, all of whom have struggling school systems showing poor results, but all of whom have two Senators. It was a stunt that resembled a surprise attack by the cops with the press informed and

the culprit put in the proverbial handcuffs and handicapped to adequately respond.

The fairness issue was considerably compounded by the fact that

the budget years that purportedly lead to the designation preceded

this superintendent’s tenure.

8

Responding to protest, the Department pulled back but returned

this week with a similar indictment following an investigation and

communication with DCPS. I lay this incident on the record, not

because I believe the designation was unfair, I had no information

or basis to judge anything except the fairness of the process that

was used.

I do know the difference between a fair process and a sneak attack.

The District may not have two Senators who have numerous

ways to retaliate against such unfairness.

But the Department is on notice that the District of Columbia

will always insist that it is treated like any other U.S. jurisdiction

whose taxes pay for our government, including the Department of

Education and its personnel.

At the same time, I have never been and will never be an apologist for the D.C. Government and especially not for its public

schools.

It breaks my heart that the public schools that were good enough

to prepare me to compete with the best and the brightest and that

the schools where my mother spent her professional teaching career would be the subject of continuing criticism.

The strongest and most informed criticism has come not from the

Department of Education or the Congress, but from the residents

of the District of Columbia.

Therein lies the good news.

The most important issue in the city today is not crime or health

care, or even housing, as pressing as these issues are. Ask anyone

on the street in the District of any race or age or ward, ask any

D.C. businessperson, and the answer will be the same. Education

is and must be the paramount issue until the system recovers.

There is every indication that local elected officials and the

school board are all engaged with education as the city’s most urgent issue.

What then is the role of a congressional committee several steps

removed from the day-to-day operations of a local school system

and with no direct oversight or financial responsibility, our role is

to listen, learn, and ask tough questions of all the witnesses before

us.

Our role is to convey unmistakably to all the witnesses our concerns and expectations.

I welcome all of today’s witnesses, and I thank them for the testimony they have prepared. I know that you can depend on the

chairman and me and on my colleagues to perform the role assigned to us of fairly reviewing the D.C. public schools before us

today.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton follows:]

9

10

11

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Ms. Norton, thank you very much. Members will have 7 days to submit opening statements for the record.

We would now recognize our very distinguished panel. We have

the Honorable Henry L. Johnson, the Assistant Secretary of Education for Elementary and Secondary Education from the U.S. Department of Education, accompanied by Hudson la Force III, Senior

Counsel to the Secretary.

We have Dr. Clifford Janey, the superintendent of the District of

Columbia Public Schools. Dr. Janey welcome back. Mr. John

Musso, who is the chief financial officer of the District of Columbia

Public Schools. Mr. Charles Willoughby, the inspector general of

District of Columbia, accompanied by Mr. William DiVello, assistant inspector general for Audits, Office of the Inspector General,

District of Columbia. And Mr. Cedric Jennings, District Columbia

public school graduate.

Thank you all for being here. It is our policy that we swear witnesses in before they testify so if you would just rise and raise your

right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. You can be seated.

Secretary Johnson, we will start with you. Thank you.

STATEMENTS OF HENRY L. JOHNSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY

OF EDUCATION FOR ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ACCOMPANIED

BY HUDSON LA FORCE III, SENIOR COUNSEL TO THE SECRETARY; DR. CLIFFORD JANEY, SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS; JOHN MUSSO,

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS; CHARLES WILLOUGHBY, INSPECTOR GENERAL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM

DIVELLO, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDITS,

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; AND CEDRIC JENNINGS, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOL GRADUATE

STATEMENT OF HENRY JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to

address this serious issue. I am Henry Johnson, Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Office of Education, responsible for elementary

and secondary education.

I want to begin by saying how much I appreciate Superintendent

Janey’s willingness to take on the tough job of turning around D.C.

public schools and his efforts to get the system moving in the right

direction.

I know of very outstanding school leaders who have passed on

applying for this because they were afraid of how tough it is.

The D.C. public schools face many challenges. And I believe that

Superintendent Janey deserves full support of the Department of

Education and will get it, and of the Congress to help meet these

challenges.

Federal education programs provided about $120 million in formula and discretionary grants to the District of Columbia in fiscal

year 2005, or about 12 percent of the school system’s $1 billion anVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:36 Jul 31, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\27852.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
12

nual budget. Moreover, Federal financial support to the D.C.

schools has grown substantially in recent years with appropriations

for No Child Left Behind programs rising by more than $39 million, or 82 percent between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2005.

Special education funding under IDEA jumped 74 percent or 6.5

million over the same period of time.

The 2007 budget proposed by the President also provides continued support for key D.C. education programs through a separate

$76 million request in that appropriations bill. This includes 15

million for the opportunity scholarship program which helps give

students from low income families in the District the same educational opportunities available to students from wealthier families, as well as the $26 million to support school improvement and

expand the charter school effort in D.C.

The President’s request also provides $35 million for the D.C.

resident tuition assistant grant program, which allows District

residents to attend public colleges Nationwide at in-State tuition

rates.

In addition to financial support, the Department has worked

with the schools to improve student achievement, primarily

through effective implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act.

For example, we have provided technical assistance to help the

schools comply with No Child Left Behind requirements regarding

standards and assessments for all students in grades 3 through 8

and in grade 10.

This week, the DCPS is administering assessments under a new

issued competent assessment system. And in May, we will conduct

a peer review process to determine how well these align with No

Child Left Behind requirements.

We have also worked closely with the D.C. schools on the reading

first program which is now in its second year of implementation at

the classroom level in 26 schools, including four charter schools and

three private schools.

These schools have adopted scientifically based instructional programs and materials and use extensive professional development

and technical assistance to improve reading instruction in grades

K–3.

The early results are promising, with a percentage of third grade

student reading at the proficient level and participating schools rising from 38 percent to 52 percent after first year of implementation.

Despite this combination of strong Federal financial support and

recent progress in implementing key Federal education programs,

the D.C. public schools has a very long way to go when it comes

to what really matters, the academic achievement of approximately

75,000 students.

This was the message of the 2005 Trial Urban District Assessment, conducted as part of the National Assessment of Educational

Progress.

In reading at both grades 4 and 8, the District finished last

among the 11 large cities, including the assessment most disturbingly at fourth grade level for the two-thirds of district students

scored at below basic reading, compared with an average of 51 perVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:36 Jul 31, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\27852.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
13

cent for other large central cities and 38 percent for the Nation at

a whole.

At the eighth grade level, scores improved somewhat but 55 percent of district students continued to read at below basic compared

to 40 percent average for large central cities and a national average of 29 percent.

The Department has considerable insight into the longstanding

problems of the D.C. schools.

For several years, our audit reviews and program monitoring

business have documented fundamental grant management internal control and procedural issues that make it very difficult to ensure for either accountability for proper expenditure of taxpayer

funds or the appropriate delivery of services to students.

Programs affected by these issues include title 1, the foundation

of Federal support for elementary and secondary education, and

programs authorized by the Individuals With Disabilities Act,

which was placed at a high risk status and has been on that status

for 5 years.

One of the main issues—and I know my time is running out, so

I am going to kind of summarize this—is that we see weaknesses

in how D.C. Manages itself as a State education agency, as well as

a local education agency.

We think this contributes to the difficulty in monitoring and implementing the grants and ultimately students’ success that is to

be generated from these Federal dollars. We stand ready to help

the D.C. public schools. I think Dr. Janey is a knowledgeable, articulate, sincere individual who will, over time, right this ship and

show success in student learning outcomes but it will take all of

our efforts, including, the high risk designation to get us where we

need to go on behalf of the boys and girls in this school system.

Thank you, sir.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Dr. Janey.

STATEMENT OF CLIFFORD JANEY

Dr. JANEY. Thank you very much, Chairman Davis, Congresswoman Norton, Members sitting to my right and to my left.

I am Clifford Janey, Superintendent of Schools of the District of

Columbia, and also serve as chief State school officer.

What I would like to do is to highlight aspects of my testimony

and not advance it word for word and paragraph for paragraph.

And I would like to begin and make reference to page 3 in terms

of one of the aims of this hearing is to have an update as to where

we are now compared to where we were last year.

And as such, I would just want to put this into the record.

The number of schools meeting adequate yearly progress in both

reading and mathematics has increased districtwide, going from

only 63 schools in school year 2003, 2004 to 72 schools in last year,

that is, 2004, 2005 school year.

At the elementary level, we have seen a number of schools meeting these targets increase from 55 to 58 and at the secondary level

from 8 to 14.

In that same year of comparison, attendance increased from 85

to 89 percent districtwide.

Additionally, English language learners dramatically improved

their proficiency in both reading and math rising from 30.8 percent

to 50.4 percent in reading, and from 50.8 percent to 56.4 percent

in mathematics.

Some other snapshots, and let’s go to the national level, it was

entered into the record about DCPS being one of 11 districts on a

trial basis in terms of its participation with the National Assessment Educational Progress Initiative.

And we continue to fully participate in that effort.

While we, along with Atlanta and Chicago and some other districts, represent the rear guard, there are points of progress I

would like to mention and enter into the record.

For example, the percentage of students scoring below basic decreased 9 percent, and this is in fourth grade mathematics, and the

percent of students scoring proficient increased by 3 percent. Both

of those increases were statistically significant.

I would also like to point out that, which is not in my testimony,

there are some nuances that certainly can’t be couched in any form

of an excuse, but should be factored into the overall look at these

points of progress for urban districts participating in the NAEP.

And that is our exclusion rate for students in terms of participating

in the NAEP of just 1 percent, and for example, when you look at

the school district of Houston, their exclusion rate for participation

was 14 percent.

Again, it is a nuance that needs to be taken into consideration

in the big picture.

With respect to some of the other points of progress a number

of students taking AP courses increased from 818 to 832, rather,

and the number of students reporting 3, 4 or 5 on AP exams increased from 531 to 549 with a 17 percent increase among males

alone.

22

We see some slight increases in the SAT, and again, it is slight,

but it gives you some sense of the angularity in terms of moving

in the right direction. We moved from 412 to 414.

But what was I think most I think accomplished in terms of the

needle moving in the right direction was the number of students

who took the PSAT, we increased it from 1 year to the next by

1,500 students. And there is a correlation between success on SAT

and taking the PSAT.

With respect to some of the operational business systems which

was not captured by the Department of Education in their reports,

we have automated our procurement system.

We did that within a 6-month period of time, even though the

plan that we had initiated was initiated was over a longer period

of time, but the concentration of going fully automated took us just

6 months. And now departments, schools, divisions, can order

whatever type of material, instructional, custodial, educational,

they can do that electronically and receive their goods within a

short period of time versus what used to be the past practice.

I want to close and certainly welcome your questions and the

conversation that we will have this morning but also, I want to

enter on to the record the fact that we have established in an unprecedented manner the development and implementation of learning standards, which set the stage for all of our students and all

of our schools to be seen whole and equal. We did such in record

time.

Less than 2 years, we adopted with the acknowledgement, support of the board of education, we adopted learning standards in

three subject areas, reading language arts, mathematics and

science, and most recently, this month before the board of education and the public is a recommendation from my office to adopt

social study standards. And we are, as Henry Johnson pointed out

so well, entering into an experience whereby our students, in all of

our public schools, including charter schools, are taken, for the very

first time, a new assessment which we developed and instituted in

less than a year and a half.

And with that, I would just like to close out in my testimony and

move to the next witness.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Janey follows:]

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you, Dr. Janey.

Mr. Musso.

STATEMENT OF JOHN MUSSO

Mr. MUSSO. Good morning, Chairman Davis, Congresswoman

Norton, members and guests my name is John Musso, and I am

the chief financial officer for the District of Columbia public

schools. I would like to thank you, first of all, for inviting us here

today so that we could briefly summarize some of the financial operations and the success in our reform of the past 24 months.

We believe that Dr. Janey’s educational reform objectives can be

achieved through a framework of sound comprehensive system of

internal controls. And those are some of the things I would like to

talk about today, just exactly what have we done to strengthen

those internal control mechanisms in the OCFO at DCPS.

We have made substantial and tangible, as well as demonstrable

progress in financial accounting operations.

During fiscal year 2005, not only did we receive an unqualified

or a clean opinion on our annual comprehensive financial statement, but we also effectively implemented past corrective actions

that eliminated all fiscal material weakness and reportable conditions for the first time in many years.

Over the past 24 months, we have made a concerted effort to

strengthen all of our fiscal management accountability by enhancing the internal controls.

Some of the following are examples of what we have done to

strengthen those. First of all, we needed to investigate and evaluate the internal control mechanisms that were in place. We added

to those, we strengthened those, and we changed some of them. We

realize that it was essential that management monitor control related issues on an ongoing basis.

We also realize that internal controls must be constantly evaluated and tested on a day-to-day operations to ensure that they are

functioning properly.

We achieved 98 percent compliance with the quick payment act.

What this means is that 98 percent of our vendors are being paid

within a 30-day period. That leaves 2 percent.

The other 2 percent is made up of generally those requisitions

that lack the requisite demonstrated documentation to justify the

payment.

Those types of things we are trying to enforce with our internal

controls.

We also successfully calculated and paid more than $22 million

in employee retroactive salary and step payments that date as far

back as 1998.

We successfully ended fiscal year 2005 with a balanced budget

and the surplus of $12,000, the fiscal year 2004 budget with a balanced budget and a surplus of $1.2 million, and fiscal year 2003

ended with a balanced budget and a surplus of $37,000. We have

collected more than $3 million in employee salary overpayments

from prior years. And we have instituted at least 10 major policies

to strengthen internal control mechanisms throughout the school

system.

37

Examples are travel policy, overtime policy, inventory and asset

and control policy.

I would also add that our external audit report contains only

three audit findings for fiscal year 2005 down 75 percent from fiscal year 2003, none of which were in the area of fiscal management. We have maintained a very high level of fiscal transparency

through the development of various budget reports and other fiscal

information as well as posting the same on our newly created

DCPS OCFO Web site.

There are also several things we have done that have overarching effects on the total system. We have specifically dedicated

several individuals in the accounts payable position just to special

education payments. We have also been able to identify nonpublic

tuition pressures far enough in advance that we are able to take

care of those pressures within that fiscal year.

And we have also been able to begin capturing the true cost of

that nonpublic education through accurately tracking those expenses and payments.

We know that systemic change and reform is not implemented

over night. And we have been able to correct many things in the

DCPS OCFO office. We also realize that others will come after us

and in order to sustain that, we begin to memorialize those things

and those practices that have led to these successes.

I also believe that we will be able to sustain high level fiscal integrity by maintaining the due diligence and strong internal control

mechanisms that we practice right now.

With reform advances made in our office as chief financial officer

and the aggressive reform efforts of Dr. Janey and his team, I am

convinced that DCPS can overcome any issues and meet the needs

and differences of every child every day. The DCPS OCFO stands

ready to serve Dr. Janey and his team and the entire school system

to lead them to a first class educational system.

Mr. Chairman, once again, thank you for the opportunity to

briefly describe some of the achievements for the OCFO, and I

would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Musso follows:]

38

39

40

41

42

43

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Willoughby, thank you for being with us.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES WILLOUGHBY

Mr. WILLOUGHBY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of

the committee. My name is Charles Willoughby. I am the inspector

general of the District of Columbia.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss issues that relate to the continuing efforts by the District of

Columbia to improve its public school system.

Many of these issues have become part of our audit agenda. My

testimony today will outline past audits that address systemic deficiencies, summarize investigative matters and address our commitment to a high priority on auditing school operations that relate to

financial and performance issues.

As you are well aware, the D.C. public schools spend an excess

of $1 billion annually and has one of the largest per capita student

expenditure ratios in the Nation. Of the more than $1 billion spent

on education programs, about 40 percent of school funds come from

State education assistance and Federal grant programs.

While audit efforts have successfully identified lapses and needed

improvements in various programs, much remains to be done to

improve the delivery of vital education services and to derive the

greatest benefits from education resources.

In the past several years, my office has increasingly devoted

audit resources to address and emergent and longstanding issues

facing the District’s education system.

These issues include special education, procurement and contract

administration, payroll, security and grants management.

For example, approximately 5 years ago, our office issued a detailed report on the costly scheduling methods used to transport

the District’s special education students. While we believe the current school administration is proactively focused on revolving the

myriad of problems facing DCPS and is actively interested in our

audit work, we believe that the problems noted still exist to this

day.

DCPS interests and our audit work was exemplified by the superintendent’s participation in our annual audit planning conference. Most recently, my audit division is focused largely on

school security issues.

One of the more problematic issues facing schools across the Nation is the difficult task of ensuring what is perhaps most fundamental to the learning environment, student and faculty safety

and security.

Working with school officials, we have completed a series of audits during the past few fiscal years that address school security

issues in areas such as the use of homeland security funds, procurement and background and training of security personnel.

The school security problems noted in our audits were instrumental in part in the District developing a comprehensive plan for

school security.

The focus of the plan was to achieve involvement among the

DCPS security division, school principals and the MPD school secuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:36 Jul 31, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\27852.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
44

rity division with respect to monitoring, controlling and improving

security within the schools.

The effectiveness of this new initiative as well as the appropriate

role of the MPD in school security remains uncertain as the District continues to address the core issue of how best to provide

school security services.

Our past audits have identified systemic deficiencies in several

areas that include procurement and payroll. Examples include

awarding contracts without effective competition, relying on faulty

sole source justifications for contracts, using an antiquated legacy

payroll system that contributes to many payroll problems and

using significant amounts of overtime in several labor categories

where some individuals earn nearly as much as their annual salary

in overtime.

The District’s Capital Improvement Program is of vital importance of maintaining a healthy infrastructure and learning environment throughout the school system. In addition, the anticipated investment of about $700 million in school renovations and new construction over the next few years mandates that we maintain our

oversight efforts in this area.

We recently issued an audit of the management of DCPS capital

projects. The audit examined the DCPS capital construction program to assess the progress DCPS was making in assuming capital

school construction projects.

While DCPS’s actions to take responsibility for managing the

CIP, or the Capital Improvement Program, are promising, we do

plan to develop audits in our fiscal year 2007 plan that will evaluate various aspects of the CIP.

We continue our involvement in school security issues as well as

other DCPS issues covered in our ongoing and planned audits.

Some current DCPS ongoing and planned audits include special

education for foster children, management of overtime pay in

DCPS, tuition and residency requirements, followup audits on procurement practices of DCPS, management of truancy at DCPS and

grant management practices.

With respect to investigations, the OIG investigations division

has conducted a broad range of criminal and administrative investigations involving DCPS officials, employees and contractors.

OIG plans to help mitigate plans risks has four main components. First, creating a permanent audit site at DCPS, continuing

efforts to followup on past audit recommendations; three, provide

financial oversight through the comprehensive annual financial report; and four, maintaining effective working relationships and coordination with school officials and leadership.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I take very seriously my responsibility to use the resources of my office to continue to perform

independent assessments of DCPS operations to ultimately resolve

critical deficiencies.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this most pressing

and important issue. And I am happy to answer any questions that

you may have.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Willoughby follows:]

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Jennings, thank you for being with

us.

STATEMENT OF CEDRIC JENNINGS

Mr. JENNINGS. Thank you, Chairman Davis, and all the committee members and fellow panelists and guests. Thank you so much

for the opportunity to provide testimony of my experiences as a

former student of the District of Columbia public schools system.

Most people know me as the subject of the best selling book, ‘‘A

Hope In The Unseen,’’ an American odyssey from the inner city to

the Ivy League by Pulitzer Prize winning author Mr. Ron Susskind.

Most people know me from ‘‘A Hope In The Unseen,’’ by Ron

Susskind. And the book chronicles my experiences growing up in

what is considered one of the most blighted sections of southeast

Washington, DC, having been a student in the District of Columbia

public schools and my college experiences as well.

And briefly, I would like to just highlight some of my experiences

as a student in D.C. public schools, as well as to highlight some

key moments in my college experiences and institutions that

worked together in moving me toward a path of success.

As I travel in touring for ‘‘A Hope In The Unseen,’’ I am met by

educators who always ask the question of, are there more Cedric

Jenningses in schools? Can we create more Cedric Jenningses in

our schools, high achieving students, students who are motivated,

ready to excel. And each time I have gotten this question I pondered in my mind, what does it mean, are there more Cedric

Jenningses. Or can we create more Cedric Jenningses?

And I came to two realities. First reality is No. 1, I am not an

anomaly. First off, my story is very common among many different

people that I have encountered. They share with me how much

they can connect with my story because they shared the same

types of experiences having gone through a tough schooling experience.

And then, second, the goal of schools, I realize, is not necessarily

to replicate me, the person, but to replicate those institutions that

actually worked in my favor as I journeyed through my schooling

experience.

Those institutions include the church, families, and schools. And

not just those institutions, individually, but their interconnectedness in how they work. First off, in terms of family, my mother,

you know, O, for the love of a mother. My mom’s desire to motivate

me to success came from her lack as a child. She constantly asked

me, what are your dreams? And I would tell her my dreams and

she would push me and say, baby, reach for the stars, you can do

anything you put your mind to.

But that question came from my mom from a deep place, because

as a child she was not asked the same question.

And so, moving forward, when she decided to give birth to me,

at the reject of my father who basically told her he would sever ties

with her if she did so, she had made up in her mind that she was

going to be unselfish in moving me toward success by enforcing the

power of education as well as the power of spirituality.

And my mom, when she gave birth to me, basically, she was in

a downward spiral of her life where she became involved in the ApVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:36 Jul 31, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\27852.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
57

ostolic church. We have long been members of the scripture Cathedral where pastor Bishop Long and the church has essentially provided us with a sense of morals, a sense of order, a sense of dignity

and a sense of pride in who we are in that we might have gone

through difficult times, living in a tough community with mom

struggling to make ends meet, but at the same time, the church

helped us to understand that we could think beyond the circumstance and think toward the future.

The church is important in terms of pastors being father figures.

Bishop Long has always been a father figure to me. And he has

helped guide me through the tough times I faced in the public

school system of Washington, DC.

My elementary schools experiences, I have fond memories of

those as I remember there being a sense of community, a sense of

love, a sense of intimacy, even between students, parents and faculty.

And, I remember the students all sharing the same desire to be

successful. And it was not a crime to have that sort of thinking.

And when I graduated from Ketchum Elementary School, I felt

that I could conquer the world and compete in any environment.

I went on to Jefferson Middle school where, at that time, the principal was Ms. Vera White, and when we talk about solutions in

terms of leadership, for those of us who know Vera White, she is—

for me she was an example of exemplary leadership when it came

to creating an environment where an ethos of success was created

amongst the students in the student body as well as amongst

teachers in the community.

I went on to Ballou High School where I was faced with the reality of what a tough inner city school really meant in terms of the

low expectations, the violence, the crime, even within schools. I

have always been brought up to look at schools as sanctuaries. It

is where you go and you partake in the process of learning.

And as you partake in the process of learning, you are able to

build upon dreams. And so I always saw school as just that thing.

And it was discouraging to me at the onset when I first began at

Ballou, to be in an environment where that same shared desire to

be successful and to do well in the world wasn’t as prevalent as it

was in previous school settings.

And it became very discouraging for me in that I was one of the

few honor students at Ballou who expressed great pride in success

and in doing well. And I experienced such criticism from classmates because it was not cool to be proud of success. The idea was

keep your head down. Don’t speak of your success.

And I was one who had lofty ambitions and dreams. And I wasn’t

willing to allow anybody to shut me down because you know they

didn’t share the same level of motivation.

And I was accused of trying to be white, thinking that I was better, I have been called nerd, egghead, you name it, but the bottom

line was, I went to school daily with a dream, with a purpose to

excel.

And I had planned on go to an Ivy league institution. And one

of the teachers at Ballou I will never forget when I told him of this

dream, he told me, I don’t think you can make it to the Ivy league,

we haven’t had a student go on to the Ivy league in 10 years.

58

And so each obstacle I faced as such, I basically looked at it as

an opportunity to become more motivated, to reach toward my

goals. I graduated from Ballou in 1995, second in my class. I went

on to attend Brown University. I graduated in 1999 with a degree

in educational studies.

I went on to the Harvard graduate school of education where I

received my master of education in human development and psychology. And then I went on to University of Michigan in Ann

Arbor, to where I earned my master of social work. Currently, I am

a social worker for the D.C. Child and Family Services Agency. And

I am thankful for the opportunity to be here and to answer any

questions in more detail of the experiences I have had.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Cedric, thank you very much for that. And

he came home. You have just given back and thank you for sharing

that with us today.

I have a number of questions we are going to go through, I am

going to do 15 minutes, try to get my questions in, and Ms. Norton

will take a few minutes longer and then we will let you get on your

way.

But this is an important question.

Ever since I was named chairman of the subcommittee back in

1995, and Ms. Norton has been my comrade in arms in this thing,

a lot of changes have gone on in the city. And as I said in my opening statement, great things are happening.

And the school system has been the toughest nut to crack. We

have had a lot of good people trying to tackle this issue. Dr. Janey,

I can’t tell you how much respect we have for you that you took

this on because they went out all over the country to look for people, and they came in and took a look at the situation and walked

away from it.

And this is tough. And nobody is sitting here blaming you for

what has been years in the making.

You are up there trying. We want to make sure at the end of this

that between Congress, between the Department of Education,

your tools, that we give you the tools that you need to succeed. As

you know, we have given the city tools that we have given no other

city in the country with vouchers the charter schools, and some

other things. And I know you are looking outside the box in a lot

of other areas.

It is a tough, tough job.

But this city is truly not going to come back until we get an educational system and we produce more Cedric Jenningses.

The good news is the number of kids from the D.C. public schools

that are going on to college has increased markedly, part of that

is, I think, we have made college affordable, Ms. Norton with our

proposals.

But it is a very tough job, as you know, to getting kids motivated, getting them through Ballou with high dreams and ambitions and making them realize that. And it is good to have you

here. It is a good role model for other kids knowing it can be done.

But sometimes they are fighting the system. The system is not

pushing them through it.

59

Out in my district in Fairfax County, it is pushing them through.

It is cool if you are not studying in some places. And we have to

change that. It is slowly, slowly changing.

First question I want to ask you, Secretary Johnson, Ms. Norton

in her opening comment talked about why you had singled out territories and you had not gone after people with Senators, is that

because you deal with the District differently because it is not a

State and you have a, overseeing it in other areas, it would be handled differently through State government? How come the city is

singled out here?

We know there are failing systems in cities throughout the country as bad or worse.

Mr. JOHNSON. The primary form of contact for the Federal Government regarding education is through the State. D.C. has a

unique role of being both a State education agency and a local education agency.

In those cases where recipients of Federal funds, D.C., and some

of those territories, have not demonstrated the ability to manage

the grants as well as they should be managed, the Department

takes appropriate steps.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. So what would you do with a State that

doesn’t do it correctly, same thing?

Mr. JOHNSON. Absolutely.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. But you haven’t had that same problem

with the States that you have with the city?

Mr. JOHNSON. Not so far.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. OK.

Mr. JOHNSON. Working with the State of Louisiana, for example,

though, which has decided to place Orleans Parish in its own categorization of high risk, we are assisting them. But we don’t make

a direct entree to entities other than those that receive Federal

funds directly.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Is it fair to say, I mean, I know that the

per people expenditure in the city is far greater than it is, for example, out in my district in Prince William and Fairfax County,

VA. It is a different model altogether. But the problems I gather

in the city are not just financial related, is that correct?

Mr. JOHNSON. That’s correct.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Could you elaborate on that a little bit?

Because I think we need to understand that money at this point,

just putting money into a system that is not prepared to spend it

correctly, account for it correctly, has its own problems. And we are

talking about a systematic change, not just financial. Is that fair?

Mr. JOHNSON. That’s correct. The bottom line on any Federal entree is to improve teaching and learning.

And the grants, whether they are discretionary or formula, are

based on trying to get an improvement in student learning outcomes.

While there has been some improvement in D.C., compared to

some of the other similar districts around the State, the numbers

don’t look as good. And we want to help rectify that situation.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. What are you prepared to do to help the

city?

60

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, we are doing prepared things or prepared to

do several things. I mentioned the money piece and I won’t repeat

those. But we are——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. It is OK, Dr. Janey is writing it down.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, again the Department of Ed has already pro- vided $1.9 million to support the elementary secondary ed. In addition, the additional $40 million for school improvement, and the finances financing for the opportunity scholarship program, we want

to provide significant technical assistance and services.

In helping to develop strategic corrective action plans planning,

we will customize the training for grantee leadership and staff to

make sure that the fiscal management in internal controls for

grant management is appropriate.

We will bring together resources from other agencies and third

party vendors. We will provide expert technical assistance and program advice for developing State plans. And we have already

worked with them in——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Dr. Janey are those things likely to help

you, do you think they will help you significantly?

Dr. JANEY. They can be helpful if it is focused, it is consistent,

and it has in its efforts the ability for measurable outcomes.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Would you move that mic closer?

Dr. JANEY. I said it could be helpful if the effort is focused, it is

consistent, and it is truly collaborative.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. What else would you ask the Federal Government? What is the most important things the Federal Government can do for you right now in addition to those things? If you

were to sit here and have a conversation, I am asking you.

Dr. JANEY. A couple of things. One, in cases where we need to

be out of the way, be out of the way. On the other side of the ledger

though, they could provide us with examples of demonstrated best

practices in other States and how, while they may not have been

in a high-risk designation, but all States have some issues. So let’s

be clear about that. But more importantly, how they work with

other States, having identified issues, whether they be in financial

management, oversight of grants to LEA’s within their respective

jurisdictions, how they overcame becoming a high-risk designation

as a State. So what was done on a preventative basis so that you

didn’t move to that next status? And what are you doing on an ongoing basis? And how do you measure success on that side?

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Secretary Johnson, can we do those kinds

of things as well?

Mr. JOHNSON. Absolutely.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Is there anything else you would like to

get from the Federal Government that would help you fulfill some

of your plans for the system?

Dr. JANEY. Yes.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I have them under oath here.

Dr. JANEY. Some plain talk, Congressman, some plain talk about

where we are in comparison to other States in assuming and following through on our responsibility to develop learning standards

and the appropriate assessments. I have felt that we have not been

given the kind of recognition and acknowledgment for the work

that we are doing in that area.

61

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Let me ask a question, comparing you to

a State in many ways isn’t a fair comparison, and I do not want

to tread on that, but you do not have the very tax base. This city,

the wealthiest areas, most of the kids, they do not go to the public

schools; they go to a private school. So when you take a look at the

makeup of the public school system and the income levels, the

number of people that are going home to educated parents, those

kind of issues, this city is far different than any State, isn’t it? In

terms of demographics, not different from other cities but different

from other States. Is that a fair comment?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. When you compare the city to States, that

gives it a tougher road to begin with. I think Mr. Jennings talks

about how he worked his way through that, but without a strong

base at home or belief, Cedric, it would have been very difficult

would it not, because you do not pick that up systemwide and know

a lot of the kids you go to school with, they are going home and

they are not getting that kind of reenforcement; is that fair?

Mr. JENNINGS. I would have to agree with that. I think a part

of it is, it is important that schools become better at engaging parents and making them a part of the process. And I guess the start

with that is through accountability of parents. I mean, it is easier

said than done, but for the most part, it was interesting to go to

parent-teacher conferences with my mom, and there is a school of

1,300 kids and only about 30 parents show up for the PTA meeting.

And usually those were the parents that didn’t need to come because their kids were already getting A’s. So that to me is an example of the need to come up with more creative ways in terms of

engaging parents, engaging them to become more active in their

children’s education, making them feel relevant in doing that.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. One of the problems of No Child Left Behind is, generally, if a school does not fulfill its goals, you give parents the option to send their kids other places. And our experience

has been at Fairfax that it is the parents who are on top of things

with the brightest kids that pull their kids out of the school which

makes it even harder for that school to succeed because you have

taken some of the core kids out. But I think that is a good insight

on that.

I think our auditors and the financial systems and all those

kinds of things are issues that we cannot solve from here. Dr.

Janey, this will take a lot of time. It may mean you have to move

some people around, bring some more people in, whatever you have

to do to do those kind of things. You have to get that. You have

to start with a good system and good accountability, but once you

get that, we still have a tough problem. I just heard the Department of Education say they are here to work with you on some of

the best practices that we have learned through time. We also cannot expect this to work in a year. This is going to take some time.

One of the concerns I think Ms. Norton and I both have is, when

this city gets singled out and the way that we all learn about it

is that somehow it is going to be a black eye for people who are

trying and helping to improve this system every year. And I do not

want everyone to leave with that impression that Dr. Janey isn’t

doing his job. And this is a long-term process. And this should be,

62

by putting them on the list, this should be a helpful opportunity.

This is just saying you need help. He knows he needs help. Let’s

work through this thing and work it. This city is a great city. And

it can become a greater city but the toughest part has traditionally

been the education system. And you have a tough group of kids to

learn.

My mom and dad both went to college. My father was a Ph.D.,

even though my mother basically brought us up, five kids. My father ended up spending a couple tours in the State prison system.

I had an educated mother, and she made it very clear to us that

education was the key to success. Most of these kids do not have

that. We tried here with our D.C. College Access Act and some

other things to let people know that it can be affordable, but the

best of these things is done with some of these subtle things and

best practices, like you say, by bringing good people in.

I had a young lady who volunteered in my first campaign in

1974. She just graduated from high school. She went to Yale, graduated from there and came back to teach in the D.C. public school

system. She would have spent her life there if she thought she was

making a difference, but it just got very discouraging. So she went

out and became a lawyer. She wanted it to work, but it was a system that was not ready to take some of these wide-eyed, bushytailed, eager, talented people and make it work. So that is our challenge as we move through this.

Oversight and supervision are two important issues when dealing with government. Is there proper supervision of the D.C. school

system? What more needs to be done that may not require funding?

Can you think of anything else, Mr. Johnson?

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, let me, if I may, make a couple of

comments about your last statement just briefly and then I will ask

Mr. La Force who is senior counsel to the Secretary who is responsible for risk management efforts in the Department to comment

as he sees fit.

I came to the Department in August and very shortly thereafter

was involved in a meeting regarding D.C., and as we worked

through internally our conversations and also conversations with

representatives from the District, it became clear to us that Superintendent Janey is a very competent superintendent. In considering

to take this move to designate D.C. as a high-risk district, we

wanted to make absolutely clear that this is not about Superintendent Janey. This is not about him at all. We think highly of

his ability, and we think that this actually will help him do the

things that are necessary to get D.C. where it needs to be.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Dr. Janey, D.C. public school systems

have an extremely complex task of serving as the State education

agency, providing oversight and guidance to all schools as well as

a local education agency acting as an education body within the

District. Can you tell us some of the safeguards that you put in

place in order to ensure that there is a comfortable and efficient

distinction between the oversight functions and the local education

functions? Do you understand what I am saying? How do your

staffing patterns reflect this? There are really two different skill

sets.

63

Dr. JANEY. Precisely. There are two different sets of skills, and

distinguishing between the two roles is a very important aspect of

how we build our budget. For example, in the budget process for

fiscal year 2007, we made a very deliberate attempt to distinguish

what would be State dedicated dollars and local dedicated dollars,

and the individuals responsible for crafting recommendations for

both budgets were doing so in ways that represented their very distinct roles. It was not a blur. So we have done that. We have put

together a State advisory committee overseeing the receipt and execution and monitoring of our Federal grants.

I am contemplating developing a new position within the State

organization that would be a deputy for me at the State level. And

this person would be dedicated to State functions 100 percent of

the time. So it would be a deputy to the chief State school officer

role that I have, knowing that I have both responsibilities, but this

person would have 100 percent responsibility as a deputy chief to

me.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Did I cut you off the last time? Do you

want to say anything else?

Mr. LA FORCE. It is OK, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Dr. Janey, in the declaration of education,

you included plans to implement a diverse provider model as a

means of turning around achievement in the District’s lowest performing schools. The public school system would be able to enter

a collaborative partnership with an array of outside educational

providers such as universities, private companies and established

community-based institution which would manage or provide comprehensive achievement support to these schools. How do you feel

about that? Have you taken any steps to implement that?

Dr. JANEY. Yes, Georgetown University has stepped up, adopted

one of our middle schools, and they will be moving to see how that

plays out from pre-K through 12 as the plan unfolds. George Washington has been a very good partner with us. As you have been

reading articles in one of the papers here in Washington, there is

an intent to explore a relationship with Kipp academy, so we have

a pre-K through 8 model. We have, on the business side of the

house, we have been retaining the support and service of various

outside providers in helping us maintain and grow our capacity for

oversight of construction projects. We most recently had the responsibility of modernizing Brightwood Elementary School. It is

our first oversight responsibility for modernization, and we are

pleased to say we came in at $181 per square foot, and the average

for the Army Corps of Engineers during their tenure here was

about $286 per square foot. So there is some demonstration about

our capacity to manage and to do it efficiently.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. You still have, though, overall, very aging

school public facilities; is that correct?

Dr. JANEY. Big time.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I understand there is still a significant

number of noncredentialed teachers in D.C. public schools. Do you

have any idea what percentage of teachers are in this category?

And do you have any plans to audit the teacher rolls to identify

noncredentialed teachers, requiring them to get their credentials?

And the last question I want to ask is, are you having trouble atVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:36 Jul 31, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\27852.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
64

tracting good new teachers into this system? I know the teacher

pool 20 years ago in Fairfax and I think around the country is,

there was a long waiting list of people to do that. Now I know it

has tightened up in the suburbs, and I assume it has gotten tight

here to attract good people.

Dr. JANEY. Interestingly enough, Congressman, we have not had

any real difficulty attracting quality teachers. It is more about attracting quality teachers in particular subject areas, special education, mathematics and science. And as a State and a school district, we are not alone. That is common to Fairfax. That is common

to some of our other partner regional districts within the overall

area. But on the subject of certification, it is something that we

take very seriously. We do not presume, however, that certification

automatically correlates with quality. We do, however, make the

presumption that you have to have that in order for you to be serving our children. But certification broken down has to be understood both with respect to competency in your subject area and certainly competency and a heartfelt kind of welcoming way by which

you are going to teach our students. If you are a person responsible

for teaching students in the area of mathematics, not teaching

mathematics, some teachers quickly say, I teach math, I teach

science, I teach a subject. No, you are teaching students about the

world of mathematics, and your approach to such has to understand that the nurturing environment and the culture of your

classroom is important.

So we have about 600 to 700 teachers who are not highly qualified, and we have been monitoring this throughout the school year.

And we have entered a major and robust recruitment effort and

have partnered with a group, an outside group, to assist us in that

recruitment effort. So we are partnering with people whether it is

in construction, whether it is with higher education with private

companies. We are also doing that in the area of human resources.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Dr. Janey.

It is curious, Mr. Johnson, you are saying this is not about Dr.

Janey. Of course it is not about Dr. Janey, except it has occurred

on Dr. Janey’s watch. Are you aware, sir, that the District of Columbia, each and every part of the District of Columbia was under

a control board because of the classrooms of the District government? If I might ask if you are so anxious to declare high-risk, how

in the world did the Department of Education miss that one?

Mr. JOHNSON. I am not familiar with what you are talking about,

but my presumption is those other things are outside the responsibilities of the Department of Ed. This focus is only on the educational aspect of the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Johnson, that was a rhetorical question. But

let me say that the question involved matters decidedly within the

Department of Education because the D.C. government collapsed.

As a result of that collapse, the schools and most especially the

schools and every other part of the government was in the hands

of a control board. Even then, the District of Columbia Public

Schools were not declared at-risk. So I am trying to find out what

at-risk means.

65

First of all, are you aware, since this is not about Dr. Janey, that

this is his first full year on the job?

Dr. JANEY. Second.

Ms. NORTON. Well, when you came in the last school year in the

fall, schools had already begun and the matters were already on

their way. And so I repeat my question, are you aware that this

is his first full year on the job where he had an opportunity during

the prior year to have an effect upon this year? Are you aware of

that?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, we are aware of that.

Ms. NORTON. Yet this is not about Dr. Janey. Again, as you say,

I take no brief for these schools or any part of the government that

fails. But you have to make me understand high-risk category. Before I came to Congress, I was a tenured professor of law, and law

students have to take care of themselves. They do not have a lot

of warning. They have exams at the end of the year. Plop. That is

it. However, one wonders about—indeed, my question is, what are

the designations since high-risk is the most serious designation a

school system can get? I must ask you what is the designation before high-risk and whether or not D.C. was given that designation

so it could have some warning that you are going to be put in highrisk if in fact you do not correct the following items?

Mr. LA FORCE. Ms. Norton, there is no designation that precedes

high-risk in our regulations. The high-risk designation is based on

five criteria that are part of our Department’s regulations, three of

which we think apply in this case. The first is that the grantee has

a history of unsatisfactory performance that goes both to financial

performance and performance in the grantees Federal programs.

The second is that the grantee has a management system which

does not meet the management standards set forth in our regulations, and finally, that the grantee has not conformed to the terms

and conditions of our grant. Those are technical requirements.

But I would also like to review for the committee, if I may, the

timeline under which we have been working as we made this decision. The Department has a dedicated group of employees that we

refer to as the risk management team. This is the group of employees that is charged with working with any of our grantees, State

level grantees, that would be identified as high-risk. In August of

last year, in August 2005——

Ms. NORTON. Stop. That would be, that are already defined as

high-risk.

Mr. LA FORCE. That are already or may be.

Ms. NORTON. Did those members of the Department notify and

work with the D.C. public schools, and specifically what did that

work consist of?

Mr. LA FORCE. In August 2005, we had an initial meeting with

Dr. Janey and other members of his staff to begin introducing what

we would refer to as a collaborative partnership-based working relationship in an effort to address our concerns with the District.

This is a practice that we have engaged in with other States in the

country, and it is an effort on our part to voice the high-risk designation.

66

Ms. NORTON. Was Dr. Janey informed that a high-risk designation would follow unless certain matters were in fact corrected, and

was he informed what those matters were that had to be corrected?

Mr. LA FORCE. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. Was he informed that a high-risk designation

would in fact follow if those particular matters were not corrected?

Mr. LA FORCE. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. Dr. Janey, do you recall a meeting where you were

informed that you were in danger of a high-risk designation?

Dr. JANEY. Yes, I do, and the date for that meeting was February

15, 2006.

Mr. LA FORCE. On October 27th, a member of our risk management team informed a member of Dr. Janey’s staff we were interested in continuing the discussions that we had in August, and I

am reading——

Ms. NORTON. Informed his staff of what?

Mr. LA FORCE. I’m sorry.

Ms. NORTON. Informed his staff of what? You have stopped. You

fill in the blank. You informed a member in October, you informed

a member of Dr. Janey’s staff, and who was that, and of what?

Mr. LA FORCE. We sent by e-mail to Dr. Bob Rice an invitation

to continue the discussions that we had started in August.

Ms. NORTON. That is not informing him of anything.

Mr. LA FORCE. May I quote from the e-mail, Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. That is what I would like you to do.

Mr. LA FORCE. ‘‘As I think you know, the U.S. Department of

Education intends this cooperative effort between our agencies to

prevent the assignment of DCPS to high-risk status, as well as an

effort by the U.S. Department of Education to help DCPS achieve

its academic goals for its students.’’

On November 18th, another member of the risk management

team wrote a letter addressed to Dr. Janey, in part, ‘‘If we do not

receive an appropriate response to the audit findings, we will have

to consider the recovery of funds and other steps, including designating DCPS as a high-risk grantee and attach further

special——

Ms. NORTON. Audit finding for what year?

Mr. LA FORCE. These were audit findings related to fiscal years

2002, 2003, which at the time were the subject of ongoing discussions with the District in an effort to correct the audit findings

from these years which had not been corrected.

Ms. NORTON. So those of course were years prior to Dr. Janey’s

years.

Mr. LA FORCE. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Musso, were you aware of this request about

years prior to the superintendent coming here and the request of

the Department for correcting those audit findings?

Mr. MUSSO. We received a copy of the request. We formulated

our response and forwarded our responses on.

Ms. NORTON. And your response—that response was directed to

you? That response came from you, excuse me.

Mr. MUSSO. Right. The response relative to the OCFO issues and

how we would correct those.

Ms. NORTON. You received that response or not?

67

Mr. LA FORCE. We received that response on February 10th of

this year, approximately 3 months after the due date.

Ms. NORTON. Oh my. You found that response so inadequate that

you believed you had to move to declare D.C. in high-risk status.

Mr. LA FORCE. The response to those audit findings was one component, part of a number of findings that we have made both

through audit reviews and program reviews. Yes, we found them

in toto to be inadequate.

Ms. NORTON. So your testimony here today is that you have

found D.C., you have designated D.C. in high-risk status because

you had no alternative; D.C. was uncooperative and unresponsive,

and therefore you felt you had to move to this most serious category.

Mr. LA FORCE. We are designating D.C., DCPS as high-risk because we are deeply concerned that the system continue the

progress it has begun. As we have discussed, different members of

the panel have testified today, I think we all share a common goal

of making sure that DCPS is performing at its best for the benefit

of its students. Today we have concerns that the District has not

addressed all of the challenges that face it. We also have concerns

about its ability to address all of those challenges in the future.

Ms. NORTON. What is your concern about its ability to address

those challenges in the future on this superintendent’s watch?

Mr. LA FORCE. We have a great deal of respect for Dr. Janey for

his experience and for the job that he is doing in the District today.

However——

Ms. NORTON. You have concerns about the future. What are your

concerns about the future so he knows what he has to do?

Mr. LA FORCE. In the simplest terms possible, we believe that

the District is facing more challenges, more problems than it has

problem solvers. Chairman Davis asked a very interesting question

in his comments about the capability of D.C. as an SEA and its role

as an SEA, and we think that is a very important part of this, that

the SEA component of the District buildup its capability. We have

concerns about the District’s ability to manage its Federal grants.

We have concerns about the District’s ability to continue to make

progress in an environment of ongoing budget challenges and in an

environment where student achievement expectation will continue

to rise year after year.

Ms. NORTON. What these three unfortunate jurisdictions have in

common, of course, is that they are treated like a State, and they

do not have the mechanisms or the resources of a State. It apparently has not occurred to the Department of Education that was at

the root of the problem, that if you wanted to help the District, the

problem was structural, and therefore one probably was not dealing

only with the District; that one was probably dealing with the only

superstructure that the District has, and that is the D.C. government.

Dr. Janey, who designated—D.C. has not always had this separate designation in the form we see it today of a State education

and city, and yet I think that was actually memorialized with separate personnel and all in a way that I do not recall having been

the case in the past. Is that true?

68

Dr. JANEY. I am not familiar with the actual date at which the

designation occurred, meaning State and local. I am just not familiar.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Willoughby, are you aware what I am talking

about? I mean, D.C. handled all of these together.

Mr. WILLOUGHBY. Exactly, I am not sure of the date either. We

do not have it.

Ms. NORTON. Now I know that certain programs which Mr. Johnson has attributed to the school system are handled essentially out

of the State education department. For example, our TAG program,

our program for television access, Dr. Janey does not have anything to do with that. They might be Federal funds. I do not think

he has anything to do with these voucher funds.

Mr. WILLOUGHBY. The only thing I can add is that I thought it

was somehow connected with Federal funding for the school system, and it was required that this State entity be established or

created, but I cannot give you a definite timeframe or date.

Ms. NORTON. So what we have again if one were, if the Department of Education stood back and said, would you—how come we

are seeing these problems in these three areas that have no State?

And yet I have heard nothing from Mr. Hudson or Mr. La Force,

I’m sorry, or Mr. Johnson about structural changes which clearly

have raised themselves in a systemic way in these three Stateless

jurisdictions. Why not? Why are you not helping with the structural matter? Do you believe, for example, that grants should be

handled by the D.C. government, some other part of the D.C. government, or have you any experience—Dr. Janey talked about best

practices—from the States other than you are not managing your

money well? Your scores in your first year, you have not brought

up. Shame on you. Other than that, kind of across-the-board criticism, have you done the analytical work with these three jurisdictions who share in common the absence of a State apparatus which

surely sorts out much of this for my good colleague Bob from Baltimore? If they are not—this is a jurisdiction in much worse shape

in some ways than we are, but they have a State superstructure.

They have State funds coming from special education and the rest

that they do not have. They have something going for them, and

it sounds to me, knowing nothing but having some analytical ability, as if I put two and two together and I say the Virgin Islands,

Guam, Samoa and the District of Columbia, what comes out is no

State superstructure. So if we have a role to play, Department of

Education, it is helping these jurisdictions without a State, these

State school districts without a State to relate to, a government,

the government that they relate to as a State in our case, it would

be the District of Columbia government. So I have to ask you, have

you been in touch with anybody in the District of Columbia government?

Mr. LA FORCE. Ms. Norton, your analysis is correct. There is a

common feature between the jurisdictions that have been on highrisk, and that is that they, in most cases, what we refer to as a

unitary system where the State and the district are the same. It

is something that we have identified and in our meeting with Dr.

Janey and his staff later today. It is on the very top of my personal

to do list to address that issue with the District. As Dr. Johnson

69

referenced in his testimony this morning, we believe that issue to

be one of the most important issues we address together as we go

forward. Our recommendation to Dr. Janey will be that we begin

building a state-type organization within his control.

Ms. NORTON. Well, would it be within his control? I am not asking that it not be within his control. But that is interesting. Is it

within the control of the superintendent of the city of Baltimore,

if we are talking about the State apparatus or the State of Maryland? I mean, this is more complicated than that, sir, is what I am

saying. I do not know what this is. It is an interesting intellectual

and management problem. This superintendent wants to make

sure that what he is accountable for coming under his jurisdiction.

At the same time, if you mix these functions so that there is nobody who has true oversight, thank goodness for Mr. Willoughby,

and he has certainly done his job, but essentially, what you have

here and what seems to me important to recognize is, you do not

have an objective State agency like the State of Maryland or the

State of Virginia which will pull the chains of Fairfax County or

Baltimore and say, you know what, you are not going to get this

State in trouble so this is what you have to do. D.C. has tried to

create that, and it does seem to me that if one tries to probe, what

could possibly be at stake here, that the root of the problem may

be this oversight problem, the mixture of function, the mixture of

oversight and the failure, therefore, to have some independent arbiter except for the auditor who looks like he is over-worked with

looking at various parts of D.C. public schools that happen to be

thrown over the transom to him to look at. I say all of this because

I told you I approach this with a presumption of it is D.C. public

schools that needs to be fixed, but with real skepticism that somehow the public schools of the great cities of the United States,

which are all finally pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, that

have had superintendents for longer than a year who probably

would not have been told, we want to see a 10-point increase in

this and a 20-point increase in that in your first year, so I cannot

believe therefore that anything is at work here except something

that is truly distinctive.

So I am going to have to ask you, because I think the superintendent is quite capable of doing what he is doing, and I think

given the amount of time and the nature of the school system, that

he is probably going to do that. If you could be helpful to us in any

way, it seems to me at that meeting should not only be, from this

meeting, that these ongoing set of meetings should not only be Dr.

Janey. It should be somebody from the city government who would

have an interest in this State function beyond these State oversight

functions we have now so that the D.C. government can be informed. The D.C. government has to take responsibility for this.

You are talking about a school system where the CFO does not

even report to the superintendent. And yet all of this is being laid

on his table. We have to just aggregate this, not to relieve him of

responsibility but to have a clearer set of functions so that those

functions are better understood.

I would like, Dr. Janey, as I said in my opening remarks, that

we wondered whether we could get a superintendent. This place

where people like to come and show their stuff normally. But there

70

have been actings and mishaps, and so we thought we were in real

trouble. So Dr. Janey didn’t have to do what the average superintendent has to do; all of them are quite extraordinary people to

take on these tasks. What he had to do was not raise the scores,

Dr. Janey. His portfolio is awesome, and I would like him to lay

out, beginning with facilities, what is on his plate to fix so that we

have an understanding of what we mean by reform of the D.C. public schools and we begin with your management plan which begins

with curriculum that, sir, is to be fully implemented beginning next

year. How would you feel, you are a superintendent, you have had

to do your due diligence you had to go to your school board, your

council, some of it has been implemented now. Where is my paper?

But parts of it in 2005, 2006, implementation is going to start in

the 2006/2007 school year. And that is of his master education

plan. And you are telling us here this morning that part of the indictment has to do with education issues. Well, thank you very

much. I guess so. What he had to do was to make sure that he had

on board his board, his residents. Let me ask him what he is about

to do.

You have drawn the master plan the master education plan. You

have gotten it approved by your board. Implementation, full implementation as I understand it starts at 2006/2007 and that more

changes will come through the next 2 or 3 years. I hope that is the

way in which he is doing it. Because if he throws this at our school

system, he will be throwing it on the grounds. You would think if

he does that, we ought to clap and say, well done, and that is it.

But I want him to lay out the rest of what has to be done by him

at the same time.

Go ahead, Dr. Janey.

Dr. JANEY. We will have to hire over 600 teachers. We will reduce the excess space in the school district by 1 million square feet

by the last week in August. We will hire probably up to 20 or so

principals. Last year, we had a churn of 44 from one year to the

next. We will have to address the modernization of our buildings.

On average, they are above 63 years of age. A case study might be

Cardoza which was built without a gymnasium. Some luminary advanced that architectural plan and constructed a building without

a gymnasium. Cardoza, among other high schools, has the cruel

task of making a decision to keep their air conditioning on, their

lighting on, or turn on the computers because of the fragility of the

electrical system. It is inadequate with respect to the amperage,

and it is inadequate with respect to the voltage. That has a direct

impact on teaching and learning and on the opportunity to fairly

respect all of our students regardless of where they have lived, regardless of ethnicity and income. It is a very daunting proposition.

We can do it. It requires, however, full recognition of all of the

points of progress we have made.

We sit in a very unique situation as a State where we have one

out of every fifth child attending a charter school, and those charter schools do not have the same kind of robust accountability that

we have within our own LEA. That is DCPS.

And finally, I would just say quickly, giving recognition to the

independent auditors report dated January 19, 2006, ‘‘In our opinion, the schedule presents fairly in all material respects the origiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:36 Jul 31, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\27852.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
71

nal budget, final budget, actual revenues, expenditures and other

sources for uses of DCPS which represent a portion of the District

of Columbia’s General Fund and Federal and Private Resources

Fund for the year ending September 30, 2005, in conformity with

accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of

America.’’

I would have, for this record, welcomed and entertained an opportunity to prevent this high-risk designation by looking at what

precise steps we would have had to commit to and demonstrate at

a level of acceptability so it would conform to what we all understand is progressive discipline. On an individual basis, we could

have done this organizationally between whatever point in time

and prior to the actual designation. But that is after-the-fact conversation.

Ms. NORTON. Indeed, I will make a request that, Mr. Johnson

and Mr. La Force and the Department of Education, that a more

definite and perhaps even intermediary step or designation be considered by the Department. These schools I indicated in the beginning that I do not think you should shy away from exactly what

you are doing. But how you do things can affect whether or not

school systems like this are going to be able to get anybody to be

able to come and do what Dr. Janey, who had a very substantial

career and apparently has the full confidence of some tough cookies

in the city. This is an election year. And we are not going to be

able to do it if one moves to high-risk. You will get some e-mails,

and I hope you all get the point and here it comes.

I would ask the Department to consider that some designation

short of that might be helpful and some breakdown in very specific

terms might be helpful, particularly if you are talking about school

systems which on their face might have the same kind of call on

resources. If you are in Baltimore and you get this kind of trouble,

you go to Maryland and say, you help us. Or if you are in Maryland

and you get this kind of word from the Department of Education,

you go to Baltimore and say, you all come on in. We have experts.

We have money. We are not going to let this happen to the State.

I would suggest, given the jurisdictions that seem to have been

alone and being caught here, that we understand something from

that is structural, and that is the kind of help that the District

needs.

I have a few more questions. I was certainly, I certainly didn’t

understand what kind of technical assistance or resources were

available here. It is one thing to call in people and tell them what

they are doing wrong, and it is one thing to tell me all the Federal

funds we receive, a lot of which are not even under Dr. Janey’s jurisdiction; it is another thing to have a true program for technical

assistance where you sit down and you do some of the things that

Dr. Janey has indicated like, here are the best practices and here

is what we suggest, particularly when you are dealing with a

school system that does not have State experts who might play

that role. So I am going to ask that kind of technical assistance be

provided, too. I want to ask you, Mr. Johnson, are you aware of the

fact that the District, that the District’s auditor is placing a permanent site at the D.C. public schools, an onsite outside auditor?

Mr. JOHNSON. No.

72

Mr. WILLOUGHBY. No, just to clarify, it is the Inspector General’s

Office, Congresswoman.

Ms. NORTON. I’m sorry. Inspector General’s Office.

Mr. JOHNSON. No.

Ms. NORTON. You know, the Inspector General is entirely independent of the D.C. government and the D.C. public schools? The

reason I ask that is, if you are going to move to high-risk status

and what we have is the Inspector General about to be onsite permanently, you might want to consider that before moving to highrisk status. This is a completely independent, tough office that

came into existence from Congress initially at the time of the control board. It is the kind of thing one would want to do before slapping some designation on people that might have an effect beyond

a bureaucrat.

Mr. Musso, it is important to clarify your role here. I do not

think there is any other superintendent that has a CFO who reports to the CFO and not the superintendent. And yet it is the

school system and not the D.C. government or the CFO who has

gotten this high-risk designation. And they are talking about 2002/

2003, and much of it is financial, and the only years they have

looked into with any depth are years before this superintendent

came. So would you tell us about your unique role here and its relationship to the high-risk designation?

Mr. MUSSO. Certainly. Thank you, Congresswoman. Indeed, you

bring up a point that not many have talked about today that is

very important for the record. The findings were based upon years

past, 2002/2003 and past that. Chairman Davis talked about this

being an issue of years in the making. And I briefly talked about

some of the reforms and some of the things that we have done. Dr.

Janey read a statement from the independent auditor for fiscal

year 2005. We talked about how we intend to end the year with

a balanced budget, with $12,000.

Ms. NORTON. I know all of that. I am trying to figure out if why

they are high-risk for financial matters and for grants if in fact any

of that comes under your jurisdiction and how that is handled?

Mr. MUSSO. That is the point I am trying to make. In terms of

at-risk status, it was based upon findings from years past. What

has not been done or looked at effectively in my estimation is what

we have been doing forward and those things that I have just

talked about. All the reforms that we have made, and we have

talked about items that have occurred under Dr. Janey’s watch,

that have not occurred under Dr. Janey’s watch; well, the reforms

we have been talking about, the advances made, the fiscal responsibility, the internal controls that are in place from my office, those

things have occurred on our watch. We are performing due diligence intelligence, and we have completed many——

Ms. NORTON. Tell me about your meetings. You must have had

meetings therefore with these gentlemen after they pulled back,

after the surprise.

Mr. MUSSO. We did.

Ms. NORTON. What occurred between you and them with respect

to 2002/2003?

Mr. MUSSO. Our exit meetings were actually very positive in nature. And when the exit occurred, it was our belief that there was

73

no fiscal reason for issuing a letter of high-risk status. All the

things that they looked at had been rectified.

Ms. NORTON. What was your response to that, either Mr. Johnson or Mr. La Force? He says he does not understand it, if financial

matters are included. I am trying to get to the bottom of this, gentlemen.

Mr. LA FORCE. The matters related to years 2002 and 2003 are

certainly part of our consideration, but they are not everything.

Ms. NORTON. So you have in fact done your own internal audits

for the years following 2002 and 2003 and the years preceding

them?

Mr. LA FORCE. Beginning in late February of this year and continuing until roughly late March, we conducted what we call program monitoring reviews, which is the Department’s review procedure for however States are implementing programs. Those program reviews included a review of Title I——

Ms. NORTON. Now, just a second, that is important. I asked you

to respond to the financial matter, and you heard Mr. Musso say

that, with respect to financial matters, he does not believe that the

high-risk status should obtain. And we can go on to IDEA, and I

am pleased to do that. But I would like a response to what he just

said, which was that those financial matters do not warrant highrisk, both going forward and what they have done and with respect

to those years.

Mr. LA FORCE. Mr. Musso is rightly proud of the progress that

his office has made at the District, and we congratulate him on

that progress as we have congratulated Dr. Janey on his progress,

but our judgments differ about where they are today.

Ms. NORTON. That is pretty vague, sir.

Mr. LA FORCE. I would be happy to continue if you would like.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Musso—I mean he has been very specific about

why he thinks this.

Mr. MUSSO. There are several things I would like to say, too.

There is a difference between fiscal accountability and fiscal accounting. The fiscal accounting is a piece the CFO talks about. The

fiscal accountability is the part that the SEO and everyone has

been talking about in terms of the grants management, the allocation of funds to subgrantees, those types of things. So there is clear

distinction between the two.

The other piece is, once again, I will go back to the independent

auditor. I mean, the proof is in the pudding. Look what we have

done in 2005. I mean, if we continue to look at the past, we’re

never going to move forward. The future is where we are at. The

future is where the children are at. We have made substantial demonstrable progress, such that an independent auditor has said

that, within the financial statements. We go several years back;

we’ve tried to correct those deficiencies and have been successful in

doing that.

The other thing that I would like to add for the record is very

clearly I remember, because I have the document back on my desk,

our reply for the fiscal portion of the Department’s issues was

dated November 15th. Dr. Janey and I collaborated on that, so I

can say and I need to say for the record that, by virtue of he or

74

I, we are not fiscally irresponsible in getting that out. Why they

didn’t receive it, we can’t speak to.

Ms. NORTON. Let me lay this to rest by saying the following:

When you have a school system that has some truly unique issues,

and the distinction you make between accounting and the accountability that goes into your coffer and the rest is very much worth

noting. But when you have a school system that has a CFO and

the CFO does not respond to the superintendent, you even have a

difference therefore with the other three territories; and the need

for very detailed work and structural advice becomes apparent.

There is no third party here. Congress is a third party. You are

a third party. But the CFO and the superintendent and the D.C.

government are all in the same matrix. And Mr. La Force, my difficulty is that I have not—you have not sufficiently played that

third party structural role, and it shows in this high-risk designation.

Mr. Musso.

Mr. MUSSO. Yes, the other thing I would like to say, Congresswoman, is you talked about my relationship as the independent

CFO. And the one thing that I want to add is, there is a relationship there. My relationship with Dr. Janey and his team is such

that he always knows what is going on. That would be irresponsible to any of us to let happen. So irregardless of whether I am

independent or I am not, what I do on a daily basis won’t change

in terms of who I have to report to. That is just because of who

I am.

Ms. NORTON. I understand that but the D.C. government is not

going to change that. But it ought to inform the Department of

Education.

Mr. Johnson or Mr. La Force, the IDEA program, that program

has been under an at-risk designation apparently for some time

here in the District of Columbia. Indeed, the IDEA program is

under a court monitor. And you know, we are in tough shape on

that because we paid for 100 percent IDEA, no State assistance, no

assistance from the Federal Government. It is draining money from

the kinds of things that might well be done in other financial and

education matters. Why didn’t you go program-by-program if you

wanted to do high-risk?

Mr. JOHNSON. Actually, that consideration was part of our discussion over the several months that we talked about it. We

thought that doing a high-risk designation for the District would

be a more comprehensive way to actually help Dr. Janey get to the

issues that need resolution. We thought that was just the most direct way to do it and the best way to do it.

Ms. NORTON. Well, just in this examination, I think back and

forth, I think we have come to a number of other ways that it

might have been done with less controversy. You would have had

me 100 percent on your side, for example. And I am not on your

side now. It is that a blob like that of high-risk is less informative,

it seems to me, than going program-by-program when you have a

school system that does not have a State in the first place.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to end on a positive note and go to

Cedric Jennings, of course. But I do want to say, you also have a

school system that has—let me get this word right now—an IG, inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:36 Jul 31, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\27852.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
75

spector general, like the Federal Government. You have some tools

to work with that it looks like have not been plumbed. When you

look at his testimony, it is amazing testimony.

I asked you about, why not go high-risk program? When I look

at what they are doing, they are looking at—and I am not going

to go through this whole thing, but look at the breadth of it, school

security, you indicated permanent site. You ought to rejoice at that.

That should have been included—that is almost enough to make

somebody not do high-risk.

They are looking at Title I programs, they are looking at management of truancy, they are looking at the management of a Federal communications grant. You look at them, they are all over the

place, a whole lot more than you all. You need to collaborate with

the way in which the District now does business because it would

be useful to you.

Again, I do want—I do want to be clear that what we have heard

here today is that this superintendent had a charge that is, if anything, outrageous. Here is your charge. Master education plan, got

to have that; master facilities plan, must have that. And the financial operations of the school system—like, I must say, the financial

operations of a lot of the rest of the government—is one of the

great unfixed parts of government. So put that on your plate too.

And who cares that you have only been here 1 year? Just get it

done. If you don’t have it done in the first year after you receive

a few e-mails and had some discussions, then be forewarned, sorry,

you are at high risk. You are not doing what you should do.

I think there was another way to do it. I think there were interim ways to do it to get more than their attention. I defy you to

tell me another superintendent that has to recreate a school system

from the ground up. That is what I expect of this superintendent.

And I, for one, will accept nothing less.

Now, Cedric, who overcame what so many students in the District of Columbia have overcome, and they have gone on to college—and the chairman and I are so proud of the fact that there

has been a 40 percent increase in college attendance—Cedric Jennings, I give all the credit to you, to your mother, and to whatever

teachers in the D.C. public school system recognized your talent

and encouraged you.

But I do want to say for the record, because there is something

else on Dr. Janey’s plate that I talked about last night at an important meeting that the press would never note, but was full of D.C.

parents, most of them single mothers. It was at the newly renovated Kelly Miller Middle School. It was called Kelly Miller Junior

High School when I went to Banneker, when it was a junior high

school. I said I don’t want anybody from the old Banneker—which

is still unrenovated, was old when I went there—to even come into

Kelly Miller because we are going to have school envy now breaking out all over the District of Columbia.

But this was a meeting not about schools; this was a meeting

about the elephant in the room that is on his plate. This was a

meeting about marriage and family, and that is what is on his

plate too.

In whatever condition we send these children to you, you just

better do your job. That is what we tell them. That he does not

76

have what Eleanor, Portia and Nellie Holmes had, which was Coleman and Vela Holmes, and an extended family to boot. He doesn’t

have what all of my classmates had. Nevertheless, you had better

do it.

That is why I talk some turkey to my parents. Talked about a

marriage, talked about the unavailability of marriageable Black

men because they get siphoned off into the thug economy so young

and yet what we have to do for our children while we are putting

the Black family back together. Talk some real stuff.

You know what, the parents, the people of the District of Columbia, it is like they are bringing extraordinary pressure on you, we

are not only ready to hear that tough talk, they rose up and

clapped about that tough talk about family and marriage and putting all that back together again.

This young man has to have had a momma. That is who I would

like to meet. Because in order for him to overcome—I know Ballou

High School, and you talk about Bishop Long, but that mother in

there was Dr. Janey’s predecessor’s partner, whatever the kids

were doing.

So I have to ask you one final question, Cedric. When you talked

about educational studies and going on to Harvard and then you

come back home, of course I was joyful that they hadn’t snatched

you. But it is interesting that you—Dr. Janey has not been able to

snag you into the D.C. public schools.

Dr. JANEY. Yet.

Ms. NORTON. You said that you work for all the most needy children. I do admire you for where you work. We can’t get folks like

you to work with our foster children. But I do have to ask you

whether you have any intention of becoming a teacher in the D.C.

public schools.

Mr. JENNINGS. I have to answer that, right?

Ms. NORTON. Are you going to take the fifth on me?

Mr. JENNINGS. I don’t know. I don’t know.

Ms. NORTON. Are you prepared—I don’t want to put you on the

spot. Are you prepared to indicate why you went to the Department

of Children——

Mr. JENNINGS. Child and Family Services Agency.

Ms. NORTON. Were you recruited from them? You have a Master’s in—is it in social work?

Mr. JENNINGS. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. What a jewel. In social work.

I am almost through, Mr. Chairman.

And education. But you went to social work, where the need is

even greater. Is that why you went there?

Mr. JENNINGS. I enjoy that idea of assisting children from a holistic standpoint, because in social work I am able to put my hands

on the various areas of the children’s lives. And for me, I have, I

guess, the opportunity to be effective in every regard in the child’s

life; that is why I chose social work.

Ms. NORTON. Amen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence.

Chairman Tom DAVIS. Thank you. Your 5 minutes has expired.

I want to thank all of you for this. We want to, as Ms. Norton

said, put this on a positive note where we all come away from this

77

working together. When we convene here next year, hopefully we

will be showing progress. This is not going to be solved overnight,

we all understand it, but working together I think we can bring us

closer to producing more Cedric Jenningses.

Thank you very much. Hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

[The prepared statements of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings, Hon. C.A.

Dutch Ruppersberger, and additional information submitted for the

hearing record follow:]

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

Æ