District of Columbia Public Schools: Implementation and Sustainability of Reform Efforts Could Benefit From Enhanced Planning
Published: 2009-07-23T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: This testimony presents information on the District of Columbia's (D.C. or the District) progress in reforming its public school system. The District's school system has had long-standing problems with student academic performance, the condition of school facilities, and its overall management. The District's public schools have fallen well behind the District's own targets for demonstrating adequate yearly progress toward meeting the congressionally mandated goal of having 100 percent of students proficient in math, reading, and science by 2014, as outlined in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA). In addition, the U. S. Department of Education (Education) designated the District as a high-risk grantee in April 2006 because of its poor management of federal grants. Of the nearly $762 million the District spends on D. C. public schools (DCPS), 16 percent comes from federal sources. In an effort to address the school system's long-standing problems, the Council of the District of Columbia (D.C. Council) approved the Public Education Reform Amendment Act of 2007 (Reform Act), which made major changes to the operations and governance of the school district. The Reform Act gave the Mayor broad authority over the District's public school system, including curricula, operations, budget, personnel, and school facilities. In doing so, the District joined a growing number of cities to adopt mayoral governance of public school systems in an effort to expedite major reforms. The Reform Act transferred the day-to-day management of the public schools from the Board of Education to the Mayor and placed DCPS under the Mayor's office as a cabinet-level agency. It also moved the state functions into a new state superintendent's office, established a separate facilities office, and created the D.C. Department of Education headed by the Deputy Mayor for Education. Because of the broad changes in governance, Congress asked GAO to evaluate the District's reform efforts. In our report, we addressed the following questions: (1) What steps has the District taken to address student academic achievement? (2) What actions has the District taken to strengthen the quality of teachers and principals? (3) To what extent have the District's education offices developed and implemented long-term plans and how has DCPS used stakeholder input in key initiatives? (4) What steps have DCPS and the state superintendent's office taken to improve their accountability and performance?
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: DCPS's early efforts to improve student achievement focused on implementing initiatives to improve student performance, including implementing a new staffing model; restructuring underperforming schools; and creating and enhancing data systems. During the first 2 years of its reform efforts, DCPS implemented several classroom-based initiatives to improve students' basic skills in core subjects. For example, to improve students' basic skills and standardized test scores in reading and math, DCPS introduced targeted interventions for students struggling in these subjects and provided additional instruction and practice to improve students' responses to open-ended questions, including test questions. DCPS is also attempting to improve the quality of its teacher and principal workforce by hiring new teachers and principals and by providing professional development, but it has encountered challenges in effectively implementing these changes. DCPS focused on a workforce replacement strategy to strengthen teacher and principal quality. After the 2007-2008 school year, about one-fifth of the teachers and one-third of the principals resigned, retired, or were terminated from DCPS. DCPS terminated about 350 teachers and an additional 400 teachers accepted financial incentives offered by DCPS to resign or retire in the spring of 2008. In addition, DCPS did not renew the contracts of 42 principals. To replace the teachers and principals who left the system, DCPS launched a nationwide recruitment effort for the 2008-2009 school year and hired 566 teachers and 46 principals for the 2008-2009 school year. The state superintendent's office and DCPS each developed 5-year strategic plans and involved stakeholders in developing these plans. DCPS released the draft of its 5-year strategic plan in late October 2008. In contrast to the state-level plan which includes the public charter schools, the DCPS plan is specific to prekindergarten through grade 12 education in its 128 schools. DCPS recently increased its efforts to involve stakeholders in various initiatives; however, it has not always involved stakeholders in key decisions and initiatives. DCPS and the state superintendent's office also have taken steps to improve accountability and performance of their offices. While DCPS has taken steps to improve accountability and link its individual performance management system to organizational goals, it has not yet linked its employee expectations and performance evaluations to organizational goals. DCPS has taken steps to improve accountability and performance of its central office. To improve accountability for central office departments, DCPS developed departmental scorecards to identify and assess performance expectations for each department. The state superintendent's office also implemented a new performance management system, effective October 2008, to hold its employees accountable and improve the office's performance. The office is converting to a single electronic management system to track and evaluate employee performance by December 2009.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to present information on the District of  Columbia’s (D.C. or the District) progress in reforming its public school  system. The District’s school system has had long-standing problems with  student academic performance, the condition of school facilities, and its  overall management. The District’s public schools have fallen well behind  the District’s own targets for demonstrating adequate yearly progress  toward meeting the congressionally mandated goal of having 100 percent  of students proficient in math, reading, and science by 2014, as outlined in  the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the  No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA). In addition, the U. S. Department of  Education (Education) designated the District as a high-risk grantee in  April 2006 because of its poor management of federal grants. Of the nearly  $762 million the District spends on D. C. public schools (DCPS), 16  percent comes from federal sources. My remarks today are based on our  report released at this hearing, entitled District of Columbia Public  Schools: Important Steps Taken to Continue Reform Efforts, But  Enhanced Planning Could Improve Implementation and Sustainability.
In an effort to address the school system’s long-standing problems, the  Council of the District of Columbia (D.C. Council) approved the Public  Education Reform Amendment Act of 2007 (Reform Act), which made  major changes to the operations and governance of the school district.  The Reform Act gave the Mayor broad authority over the District’s public  school system, including curricula, operations, budget, personnel, and  school facilities. In doing so, the District joined a growing number of cities  to adopt mayoral governance of public school systems in an effort to  expedite major reforms. The Reform Act transferred the day-to-day  management of the public schools from the Board of Education to the  Mayor and placed DCPS under the Mayor’s office as a cabinet-level  agency. It also moved the state functions into a new state superintendent’s  office, established a separate facilities office, and created the D.C.  Department of Education headed by the Deputy Mayor for Education.
Because of the broad changes in governance, Congress asked GAO to  evaluate the District’s reform efforts. In our report, we addressed the  following questions: (1) What steps has the District taken to address  student academic achievement? (2) What actions has the District taken to  strengthen the quality of teachers and principals? (3) To what extent have  the District’s education offices developed and implemented long-term  plans and how has DCPS used stakeholder input in key initiatives? (4)  What steps have DCPS and the state superintendent’s office taken to  improve their accountability and performance?
To answer these questions, we reviewed and analyzed relevant documents  and research and interviewed officials from the District’s education  offices. We also interviewed representatives of education and research  associations, and various organizations based in the Washington, D.C.  community. Across all our objectives, we measured the progress of  ongoing reform efforts against any implementation time frames  established by DCPS or the state superintendent’s office. We based our  evaluation of completed initiatives on relevant recognized standards, such  as those established by GAO in past reports. To provide a broader national  context for our work, we visited four urban school districts with mayoral  governance: Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, and New York City. We based  our selection of these districts on how long the school district had been  under mayoral control and student demographic information. We  interviewed high-level officials—such as superintendents and former  superintendents, school board presidents and members, officials from  majors’ offices—as well as union leaders, and representatives from various  community and research organizations in these cities.
In summary, DCPS’s early efforts to improve student achievement focused  on implementing initiatives to improve student performance, including  implementing a new staffing model; restructuring underperforming  schools; and creating and enhancing data systems. DCPS is refocusing or  revising its approach to many of these initiatives as it continues to  implement them. DCPS is also attempting to improve the quality of its  teacher and principal workforce by hiring new teachers and principals and  by providing professional development, but it has encountered challenges  in effectively implementing these changes. DCPS officials told us that the  2007-2008 and 2008-2009 teacher evaluation process did not allow them to  assess whether the teacher workforce improved between these 2 school  years and that they are working to develop a new teacher evaluation  system. The state superintendent’s office and DCPS each developed 5-year  strategic plans and involved stakeholders in developing these plans. While  DCPS has recently increased efforts to involve stakeholders such as  parents and the D.C. Council in key initiatives, past stakeholder  involvement was inconsistent. DCPS and the state superintendent’s office  also have taken steps to improve accountability and performance of their  offices. While DCPS has taken steps to improve accountability and link its  individual performance management system to organizational goals, it has  not yet linked its employee expectations and performance evaluations to  organizational goals.
subsections: section_title: DCPS Quickly Implemented Many Separate Initiatives to Improve Overall Student Performance and Is Refocusing Its Approach as It Moves Forward
paragraphs: During the first 2 years of its reform efforts, DCPS implemented several  classroom-based initiatives to improve students’ basic skills in core  subjects. For example, to improve students’ basic skills and standardized  test scores in reading and math, DCPS introduced targeted interventions  for students struggling in these subjects and provided additional  instruction and practice to improve students’ responses to open-ended  questions, including test questions. Table 1 provides a list of DCPS’s major  initiatives to improve student outcomes, as well as descriptions and the  status of these initiatives.
DCPS is modifying its approach to implementing many of these initiatives  as it moves forward. For example, the Chancellor recently acknowledged  that DCPS, in its effort to remedy the range of issues that plagued the  District’s public schools, may have launched too many initiatives at once  and some schools may not have had the capacity to implement so many  programs effectively. In particular, some schools were undergoing  significant organizational changes that may have affected their ability to  implement these new academic initiatives. To support such schools, DCPS  is considering offering a choice of programs for schools and allowing the  principals to determine which programs best suit their schools’ needs and  capacity.
DCPS does not yet know how successful these initiatives have been in  improving student achievement. Our report notes that DCPS elementary  and secondary students increased their reading and math scores between  8 and 11 percentage points on the 2008 state-wide test, but it is unclear  whether these gains could be attributed to the current reform efforts or to  prior efforts. Preliminary scores for the 2009 reading and math tests were  announced on July 13, 2009. Elementary students made modest gains in  reading (49 percent were proficient in reading, up from 46 percent in 2008)  and more substantial gains in math (49 percent proficient in math, up from  40 percent in 2008). Preliminary scores for secondary students show that  41 percent are proficient in reading, up from 39 percent in 2008, and 40  percent are proficient in math, up from 36 percent in 2008. While DCPS  officials told us that it is generally difficult to isolate and quantify the  impact of any single program on student achievement, they plan in late  summer 2009 to analyze student outcomes, including state-wide test  scores, to assess the effectiveness of various initiatives.
DCPS officials also noted that there were varying levels of teacher quality  and knowledge of effective teaching practices, and that it was difficult to  ensure the extent to which teachers implemented the programs effectively.  While DCPS had not previously defined “effective” teaching, DCPS  officials told us they will focus on practicing effective teaching, as  opposed to implementing various disparate programs. By the beginning of  the 2009-2010 school year, DCPS plans to implement a framework that is  intended to help teachers understand what students are expected to learn  for each subject, how to prepare lessons, and what effective teaching  methods are to be used.
DCPS also changed the way it allocated teachers across its schools for the  2008-2009 school year. This new staffing model was intended to provide all  schools with a core of teachers including art, music, and physical  education, as well as social workers. It was also intended to provide all  schools with reading coaches who work with teachers to improve reading  instruction. Prior to this change, DCPS allocated funding to schools using  a weighted student formula, which distributed funds to schools on a per  pupil basis, so that the greater the enrollment of a school, the greater the  amount allocated to that school.  The new staffing model was intended to  ensure core staff at all schools regardless of enrollment. While DCPS  allowed principals to request changes to the staffing model based on their  school’s needs, it did not establish or communicate clear guidance or  criteria on how such requests would be treated. Therefore, it is unclear  whether similar requests were treated in a consistent manner. A more  transparent process, one that publicly shared their rationale for such  decisions, would have helped assure stakeholders, including the D.C.  Council, that changes to staffing allocations were made consistently and  fairly. The D.C. Council and several community groups have criticized the  process for its lack of transparency and questioned the fairness of the  decisions made. For example, one independent analysis concluded that  under the staffing model some schools received less per pupil funding than  others with similar student populations. DCPS revamped its approach for  the staffing model for the 2009-2010 school year to address some of these  challenges. For example, it established guidance about what changes it  will allow principals to make to the staffing model and disseminated this  guidance to school leaders at the beginning of the budgeting process.  According to DCPS, the new guidance is expected to reduce the number of  changes that principals request later in the process.
In addition, as required by NCLBA, DCPS restructured 22 schools before  the fall of 2008, after the schools failed to meet academic targets for 6  consecutive years. NCLBA specifies five options for restructuring a school,  including replacing selected staff or contracting with another organization  or company to run the school. DCPS revamped its process for determining  the most appropriate restructuring option for the 13 schools that will be  restructured in the 2009-2010 school year. Prior to implementing the first  round of restructuring (for the 2008-2009 school year), DCPS officials told  us there were insufficient school visits and inadequate training and  guidance for teams assigned to evaluate which restructuring option was  best suited for a given school. DCPS has addressed these issues by  requiring two visits to each school, offering more training, and revising the  form used to evaluate each school’s condition for the next round of  restructuring. Restructuring underperforming schools will likely be an  ongoing initiative for DCPS, as 89 of its 118 schools were in some form of  school improvement status as of June 2009.
Finally, DCPS and the state superintendent’s office are planning and  developing new ways to use data to monitor student achievement and  school performance. DCPS reported it has ongoing and planned initiatives  to expand data access to principals and teachers, in part to monitor  student and school performance. In particular, DCPS reported making  improvements to its primary student data system so central office users  can better monitor school performance. DCPS also plans to use monthly  reports to enable school leaders to better monitor student progress, but  DCPS officials told us they have delayed some of these efforts while they  attempt to improve coordination among the various departments that were  developing and disseminating information to school leaders. The state  superintendent’s office also is developing a longitudinal database, called  the Statewide Longitudinal Education Data Warehouse (SLED), intended  to allow DCPS and other stakeholders to access a broad array of  information, including standardized test scores of students and  information on teachers. According to officials in the state  superintendent’s office, they revised the project schedule to allow more  time to assist the charter schools with updating their data systems. In  February 2009, the initial release of student data provided a student  identification number and information on student eligibility for free or  reduced-price lunches and other student demographics for all students  attending DCPS’s schools and the public charter schools. The state  superintendent’s office plans for SLED to enable DCPS to link student and  teacher data by February 2010.
section_title: DCPS Replaced Teachers and Principals and Introduced Professional Development Initiatives, but Encountered Challenges in Implementation
paragraphs: DCPS focused on a workforce replacement strategy to strengthen teacher  and principal quality. After the 2007-2008 school year, about one-fifth of  the teachers and one-third of the principals resigned, retired, or were  terminated from DCPS. DCPS terminated about 350 teachers and an  additional 400 teachers accepted financial incentives offered by DCPS to  resign or retire in the spring of 2008. In addition, DCPS did not renew the  contracts of 42 principals. To replace the teachers and principals who left  the system, DCPS launched a nationwide recruitment effort for the 2008- 2009 school year and hired 566 teachers and 46 principals for the 2008- 2009 school year. DCPS did not have a new teacher contract in place due  to ongoing negotiations with the Washington Teachers’ Union and DCPS  officials told us a lack of contract may have hindered their efforts to  attract top-quality teachers. Under the plan, which has been in negotiation  with the Washington Teachers’ Union since November 2007, the  Chancellor has stated that she wants to recruit and retain quality teachers  by offering merit pay, which would reward teachers with higher salaries  based, in part, on their students’ scores on standardized state tests.
In addition, DCPS officials told us that the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009  teacher evaluation process did not allow them to assess whether the  teacher workforce improved between these 2 school years. According to  DCPS officials, this system does not measure teachers’ impact on student  achievement—a key factor cited by DCPS officials in evaluating teacher  effectiveness. DCPS plans to revise its teacher evaluation process to more  directly link teacher performance to student achievement. To supplement  school administrators’ observations of teachers, DCPS is also seeking to  add classroom observations by 36 third-party observers, called master  teachers, who would be knowledgeable about teaching the relevant  subject matter and grade level.
In addition, DCPS introduced professional development initiatives for  teachers and principals, but late decisions about the program for teachers  led to inconsistent implementation. For the 2008-2009 school year, DCPS  hired about 150 teacher coaches to improve teachers’ skills in delivering  reading and math instruction and boost student test scores. According to  DCPS, teacher coaches assisted teachers with interpreting student test  scores, planning lessons, and using their classroom time constructively.  DCPS is planning for teacher coaches to work with teachers in all grades  and subjects for the 2009-2010 school year. DCPS intended to staff about  170 teacher coaching positions; however, as DCPS began the 2008-2009  school year, about 20 percent of the coaching positions remained open (19  reading coach vacancies and 16 math coach vacancies) because of late  hiring of teacher coaches. DCPS officials told us they made the decision to  hire teacher coaches after their review of school restructuring plans in  June 2008. The ratio of teachers to coaches was higher than it would have  been had the positions been filled. In addition, according to DCPS officials  and Washington Teachers’ Union officials we interviewed, teacher coaches  were often uncertain about their responsibilities and how to work with  teachers, and received some conflicting guidance from principals.
section_title: The State Superintendent’s Office and DCPS Have Developed and Begun Implementing Strategic Plans; However, DCPS Has Not Always Involved Relevant Stakeholders in Planning and Implementing Key Initiatives
paragraphs: The state superintendent’s office and DCPS each developed their 5-year  strategic plans and involved stakeholders in the process. Stakeholder  involvement in formulating strategic plans allows relevant stakeholders to  share their views and concerns. The state superintendent’s office and the  State Board of Education collaboratively developed the District’s state- level, 5-year strategic plan, and released it in October 2008. This state-level  plan spans early childhood and kindergarten through grade 12 education  (including public charter schools). Officials from the state  superintendent’s office told us they involved District officials, and  stakeholders representing early childhood education, business, and higher  education communities, as well as other stakeholders while drafting the  plan. In September 2008, the state superintendent’s office held a public  forum to solicit stakeholder input and accepted comments on the draft on  its Web site. The office released a revised version of the plan within a  month of the public forum.
DCPS released the draft of its 5-year strategic plan in late October 2008. In  contrast to the state-level plan which includes the public charter schools,  the DCPS plan is specific to prekindergarten through grade 12 education in  its 128 schools. DCPS officials told us they based the draft on the Master  Education Plan, which the prior DCPS administration developed with  stakeholder involvement, and that they sought additional stakeholder  input through a series of town hall meetings. After releasing the draft,  DCPS held three public forums in the following 3 weeks where attendees  provided DCPS officials with feedback on the draft strategic plan. In May  2009, DCPS released the revised draft, which incorporated stakeholder  feedback. Officials from the D.C. Deputy Mayor of Education’s office told  us that as part of their office’s coordinating role, it ensured that DCPS and  the state-level strategic plans were aligned. However, the office had no  documentation showing its efforts to coordinate these plans, such as an  alignment study. We found that the two plans were aligned in terms of  long-term goals. For example, DCPS’s goals could support the state-level  goal of having all schools ready. However, we could not evaluate whether  more detailed, objective measures and performance targets were aligned  because the DCPS strategic plan did not always include specific objective  measures and performance targets.
DCPS recently increased its efforts to involve stakeholders in various  initiatives; however, it has not always involved stakeholders in key  decisions and initiatives. DCPS officials told us they have a variety of  approaches to involve stakeholders, including parents, students, and  community groups, as well as institutional stakeholders such as the D.C.  Council. For example, DCPS officials told us they reach out to parents,  students, and the public through monthly community forums, meeting  with a group of high school student leaders and a parent advisory group,  responding to e-mail, and conducting annual parent and student surveys to  gauge the school system’s performance. DCPS also involved other  stakeholders, such as parent organizations and the Washington Teachers’  Union in its process of changing the discipline policy. However, according  to two DCPS officials, DCPS did not have a planning process in place to  ensure systematic stakeholder involvement, and we found that DCPS  implemented some key initiatives with limited stakeholder involvement.
For example, key stakeholders, including D.C. Council members and  parent groups, told us they were not given the opportunity to provide input  on DCPS’s initial proposals regarding school closures and consolidations,  the establishment of schools that spanned prekindergarten to grade 8, or  the planning and early implementation of the new staffing model that  placed art, music, and physical education teachers at schools and which  fundamentally changed the way funding is allocated across DCPS.
Lack of stakeholder involvement in such key decisions led stakeholders,  including the D.C. Council and parents groups, to voice concerns that  DCPS was not operating in a transparent manner or obtaining input from  stakeholders with experience relevant to the District’s education system.  Further, these stakeholders have questioned whether the impact of reform  efforts will be compromised because of restricted stakeholder  involvement. Stakeholders in the other urban school districts we visited  told us a lack of stakeholder involvement leads to less transparency as key  decisions are made without public knowledge or discourse. In addition,  the lack of stakeholder involvement can result in an erosion of support for  ongoing reform efforts and poor decisions. For example, officials in  Chicago and Boston said public stakeholder involvement was critical to  community support for various initiatives, such as decisions on which  schools to close. Officials and stakeholders in New York cited a lack of  stakeholder involvement in decisions that were eventually reversed or  revised.
section_title: DCPS and the State Superintendent’s Office Have Taken Steps to Improve Accountability and Performance, and DCPS Has Yet to Align Key Aspects of Its Performance Management System to Organizational Goals
paragraphs: DCPS has taken steps to improve accountability and performance of its  central office. To improve accountability for central office departments,  DCPS developed departmental scorecards to identify and assess  performance expectations for each department. According to a DCPS  official, these scorecards are discussed at weekly accountability meetings  with the Chancellor to hold senior-level managers accountable for meeting  performance expectations. In addition, in January 2008, DCPS  implemented a new performance management system for employees.  Performance management systems for employees are generally used to set  individual expectations, assess and reward individual performance, and  plan work. In addition, as we previously reported in our March 2008  testimony, DCPS developed individual performance evaluations as a part  of its performance management system in order to assess central office  employees’ performance. Previously, performance evaluations were not  conducted for most DCPS staff. Individual performance evaluations are  now used to assess central office employees on several core competencies  twice a year.
Prior to our March 2008 testimony, DCPS officials told us that they  intended to align the performance management system with organizational  goals by January 2009, and DCPS has taken some steps to improve  alignment. For example, DCPS officials told us they had better aligned  their departmental scorecards to their 2009 annual performance plan.  However, DCPS has not yet explicitly linked employee performance  evaluations to the agency’s overall goals. DCPS officials told us they plan  to do so in the summer of 2009.
The state superintendent’s office also implemented a new performance  management system, effective October 2008, to hold its employees  accountable and improve the office’s performance. The office is  converting to a single electronic management system to track and evaluate  employee performance by December 2009. According to an official from  the state superintendent’s office, this system links individual employee  evaluations to overall performance goals and the office’s strategic plan.  Under this new evaluation system, each employee is given a position  description, which includes responsibilities and duties linked to the  overall goals, mission, and vision of the state superintendent’s office.
Individual and agency expectations are defined in an annual performance  meeting with the employee. The office is currently training supervisory  employees on how to use the system before its full implementation in  December 2009.
In addition to implementing a performance management system, the State  Superintendent has begun to address long-term deficiencies identified by  Education related to federal grant management. Education designated the  District as a high-risk grantee because of its poor management of federal  grants. If the District continues to be designated as a high-risk grantee,  Education could respond by taking several actions, such as discontinuing  one or more federal grants made to the District or having a third party take  control over the administration of federal grants. As noted in a recent GAO  report, the state superintendent’s office uses findings from an annual  audit as part of its risk assessment and monitoring of subrecipients. The  findings are used to design monitoring programs and determine risk levels  for each school district, and the risk levels are used to develop monitoring  strategies and work plans. The state superintendent’s office developed a  corrective action plan, which it reports to Education and intends to use  the plan to strengthen the monitoring of the school districts.
section_title: Implementation of Recommendations Could Improve Sustainability of Reform Efforts
paragraphs: The District’s Mayor and his education team have taken bold steps to  improve the learning environment of the District’s students. As more  initiatives are developed, the need to balance the expediency of the reform  efforts with measures to increase sustainability, such as stakeholder  involvement, is critical. DCPS currently lacks certain planning processes,  such as communicating information to stakeholders in a timely manner  and incorporating stakeholder feedback at key junctures, which would  allow for a more transparent process. Stakeholder consultation in  planning and implementation efforts can help create a basic understanding  of the competing demands that confront most agencies and the limited  resources available to them. Continuing to operate without a more formal  mechanism for stakeholder involvement could diminish support for the  reform efforts, undermine their sustainability, and ultimately compromise  the potential gains in student achievement. In addition, since the Reform  Act, the District has taken several steps to improve central office  operations, such as providing more accountability at the departmental  level and implementing a new individual performance management  system. However, DCPS has not yet aligned its performance management  system, including its individual performance evaluations, to its  organizational goals, which could result in a disparity between employees’  daily activities and services needed to support schools. By ensuring that  employees are familiar with the organizational goals and that their daily  activities reflect these goals, DCPS could improve central office  accountability and support to schools.
In our report that we publicly released today, we make two  recommendations that could improve the implementation and  sustainability of key initiatives in the District’s transformation of its public  school system. We recommend that the Mayor direct DCPS to:    Establish planning processes that include mechanisms to evaluate its  internal capacity and communicate information to stakeholders and, when  appropriate, incorporate their views.
Link individual performance evaluations to the agency’s overall goals.
In written comments on the report, all three District education offices— DCPS, the state superintendent’s office and the Deputy Mayor for  Education—concurred with our recommendations. However, they  expressed concern with the way in which we evaluated their reform  efforts and the overall tone of the draft report. A summary of the District’s  response to our findings and recommendations, as well as our evaluation  of the response, are contained on pages 41 and 42 of the report.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my  prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions that you  may have at this time.
section_title: Acknowledgements
paragraphs: For further information regarding this testimony, please contact Cornelia  Ashby at (202) 512-7215 or ashbyc@gao.gov. In addition, contact points for  our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this statement. Individuals who made key contributions to  this testimony are Elizabeth Morrison, Assistant Director, Sheranda  Campbell, and Nagla’a El-Hodiri.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.