District of Columbia Public Schools: Important Steps Taken to Continue Reform Efforts, But Enhanced Planning Could Improve Implementation and Sustainability
Published: 2009-06-26T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In response to long-standing problems with student achievement and the management of the District of Columbia (D.C. or the District) public school system, the D.C. Council approved the Public Education Reform Amendment Act of 2007. This act made major changes to the governance of the D.C. public school system, giving the Mayor authority over public schools. This report follows a GAO testimony in March 2008 and focuses on the primary reform approaches the District has taken. This report examines the steps the District took to: (1) address student academic achievement; (2) strengthen the quality of teachers and principals; (3) develop long-term plans and involve stakeholders; and (4) improve accountability and performance of the D.C. public schools (DCPS) and the state superintendent's central offices. GAO reviewed documentation on District initiatives, and interviewed District education officials as well as representatives from the teachers' union, community organizations, and research institutions. GAO also conducted visits to four urban school districts with mayoral governance.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Early efforts to improve student achievement at DCPS have focused on improving student performance, closing underutilized and reorganizing underperforming schools, and creating and enhancing data systems. During the first 2 years of its reform efforts, DCPS implemented many initiatives to improve overall student performance, such as classroom-based initiatives to improve basic skills of students. In addition, under the No Child Left Behind Act, DCPS restructured 22 schools before the fall of 2008, after the schools failed to meet academic targets for 6 consecutive years. Finally, DCPS and the state superintendent's office are developing new ways to monitor student achievement and school performance. Specifically, a longitudinal database is being developed that is intended to allow DCPS and other key users to access a broad array of data, including student test scores. DCPS is modifying its approach to many of these initiatives such as focusing on effective teaching as opposed to implementing disparate programs. DCPS has focused on improving the quality of its workforce by replacing teachers and principals and by providing professional development, but it has encountered challenges in effectively implementing these changes. 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. However, because DCPS did not have an effective way to evaluate teacher performance, officials are uncertain if the new staff improved the quality of its workforce. DCPS is currently working on a new teacher evaluation system. In addition, DCPS introduced professional development initiatives for teachers and principals. For example, it began placing teacher coaches at schools to support teachers at their work sites. However, late decisions to hire these teacher coaches led to inconsistent implementation of this initiative during the 2008-2009 school year. The state superintendent's office and DCPS each developed their 5-year strategic plans and involved stakeholders in developing these plans. The state superintendent plan and the DCPS draft strategic plan each contain many elements of effective plans, such as aligning short-term objectives to long-term goals. DCPS has 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 have taken steps to improve accountability and performance. For example, both offices have started implementation of new individual employee performance management systems. However, while DCPS has taken some additional steps to improve accountability, it has not yet linked its employee expectations and performance evaluations to organizational goals to improve central office operations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The District of Columbia’s (D.C. or the District) public school system has  had long-standing problems with student academic performance, the  condition of school facilities, and the overall management of the D.C.  school system. For example, test scores have lagged behind those of most  other urban districts in a nationally administered test. Further, 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). Some parents have been enrolling their  children in charter schools, and student enrollment in D.C. public schools  (DCPS) has declined from 65,000 in 2000-2001 to 45,200 in 2008-2009, a  decline of about 30 percent. Of the nearly $762 million the District spends  on DCPS, 16 percent comes from federal sources.
There is an increasing urgency to address these persistent problems. In an  effort to address the lack of academic progress, declining enrollment, and  dilapidated buildings, 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 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.
Because of the District’s past struggles to reform its public school system  and the broad changes in governance, Congress asked GAO to evaluate the  District’s reform efforts. As part of this evaluation, we testified in March  2008 about the status of the reform efforts. In that testimony, GAO  recommended that the Mayor direct the D.C. Department of Education to  develop a long-term district-wide education strategic plan that would  include certain key elements including a mission or vision statement, long- term goals and priorities, and approaches and time frames for assessing  progress and achieving goals. To provide further evaluation of the  District’s primary reform efforts, 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, such as DCPS and the Office of the State Superintendent of  Education. For example, we interviewed high-ranking officials such as the  State Superintendent of Education; the Chancellor of DCPS; and  departmental leaders at DCPS, including the Interim Chief Academic  Officer, the Deputy Chancellor for Human Resources and External  Relations, the Chief of Data and Accountability, and the head of the  Transformation Management Office. 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 understand the steps  that have been taken to address student achievement, we gathered  information about the various academic initiatives DCPS has planned or  implemented, and reviewed and analyzed documentation of how schools  were restructured. We assessed the reliability of the restructuring data for  the 2008-2009 school year by reviewing documentation and interviewing  agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We determined that the  data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We also  interviewed eight principals from schools that had been consolidated as a  result of the closure of 23 schools prior to the 2008-2009 school year  primarily due to declining enrollments. We reviewed and analyzed  documentation—including state-level contracts and project plans— regarding efforts to improve data collection, quality, and usage. We did not  independently verify reported improvements to DCPS and state  superintendent’s office data systems. To understand how the District was  strengthening teacher and principal quality, we reviewed documents  regarding teacher and principal recruitment, development, and evaluation,  as well as licensure requirements. We also interviewed officials from the  Washington Teachers’ Union, the American Federation of Teachers, and  the Council of School Officers (principals’ union). To address the question  on strategic planning and stakeholder involvement, we reviewed and  analyzed strategic plans, interviewed cognizant officials from the District’s  education offices, and attended public discussions relevant to strategic  planning, as well as D.C. Council hearings. We also interviewed the  Chairman of the D.C. Council and representatives from several community  and education organizations, including DC VOICE, the Council of the  Great City Schools, and Parents United for the D.C. Public Schools. To  understand the steps that DCPS and the state superintendent’s office have  taken to improve performance and accountability, we reviewed the  alignment of the individual performance management plans to  organizational goals and the results of DCPS’s internal customer  satisfaction survey. 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—including superintendents and former superintendents, school  board presidents and members, officials from mayors’ offices—as well as  union leaders, and representatives from various community and research  organizations in these cities. In addition, we asked officials in the District’s  education offices about their planned and actual use of economic stimulus  funds provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act  (Recovery Act).
We performed our work from May 2008 through June 2009 in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards  require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate  evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained  provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our  audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: The District’s Public School System
paragraphs: The District’s prekindergarten through grade 12 school system is  composed of 128 public schools with enrollment for the 2008-2009 school  year around 45,200. Historically, DCPS has had several problems that  interfere with the education of its students. One primary problem was the  dysfunction of the central office. For example, textbooks were not  delivered on time or at all, parents complained about the lack of  responsiveness of the central office, and teachers were not always paid on  time. In addition, data systems were obsolete and inundated with errors,  making it difficult to access basic information, such as the number of  students enrolled at a school and student attendance rates. Such problems  persisted in the D.C. public school system for several years despite  numerous efforts to address them. In 1989, a report by the D.C. Committee  on Public Education noted declining achievement levels as students  moved through grades, the poor condition of the school system’s physical  facilities, and the lack of accountability among D.C. agencies for the  schools. Recent reports have continued to cite these problems. In 2004,  the Council of the Great City Schools reviewed the D.C. school system and  cited the continued failure to improve student achievement.
Efforts to improve the District’s schools often included new leadership to  head the troubled school system. Over the last 20 years, DCPS has  employed more than seven superintendents with an average tenure of 2.9  years. Such frequent changes in leadership may have further complicated  efforts to improve student achievement, as each leader may have brought  a different cadre of initiatives and goals which were not fully developed or  implemented with the constant changes in leadership. In 2006, an analysis  of the school system’s reform efforts by a consulting firm found no  progress in student achievement and recommended a change in  governance to improve student achievement and system-wide  accountability.
section_title: The Reform Act
paragraphs: In response to the problems facing the District’s public school system, the  D.C. Council (the legislative branch of the D.C. government) approved the  2007 Reform Act, which significantly altered the governance of the D.C.  public schools. 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. Prior to the  Reform Act, the head of D.C. public schools was selected by and reported  to the Board of Education. The Reform Act 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. The Deputy Mayor’s Office and the state  superintendent’s office are also cabinet-level offices in the D.C.  government structure.
section_title: Office of the State Superintendent of Education
paragraphs: Although the District of Columbia is not a state, its Office of the State  Superintendent of Education serves as the District’s state education  agency. Prior to the Reform Act, state functions and local functions were  conducted in one office which led to problems with oversight and  monitoring. Further, the District was and continues to be on the U.S.  Department of Education’s (Education) high-risk list for its management  of federal education grants. The Reform Act addressed such issues by  clearly separating the two entities. Along with managing, distributing, and  monitoring the use of federal funds across DCPS and the public charter  schools, the office of the state superintendent has a significant policy  role. For example, the state superintendent’s office works collaboratively  with the State Board of Education to set standards of what students  should learn in all the District’s public schools. In addition, in carrying out  NCLBA, the state superintendent’s office is responsible for the state-wide  assessment, or standardized test, that measures students’ progress in  attaining proficiency and sets annual proficiency targets. The state  superintendent’s office also delineates requirements for teacher licensure  and, within the guidelines provided by NCLBA, determines the District’s  definition of “highly qualified teachers.” In addition to these policy  functions, the state superintendent’s office also provides support to D.C.  public schools and the public charter schools. For example, the office can  offer training and technical assistance on a variety of topics, such as the  appropriate use and tracking of federal education funds.
section_title: NCLBA and the Recovery Act
paragraphs: In January 2002, Congress passed NCLBA which requires states to focus  on increased expectations for academic performance and accountability.  Under NCLBA, states are required to establish performance goals and hold  schools that receive federal funds under Title I of NCLBA accountable for  student performance by determining whether or not they have made  adequate yearly progress (AYP). The failure to make AYP, or meet  academic targets, for 2 or more consecutive years leads to specific actions  that schools must take to improve student academic achievement. These  actions, such as developing a school improvement plan or extending the  school day, are more intensive the longer the school fails to meet  academic targets. After 5 or more consecutive years of failing to meet  academic targets, a school must make plans to restructure its governance  and implement those plans the subsequent year. NCLBA specifies five  options for restructuring schools: reopening as a charter school, replacing  all or most of the school staff relevant to the failure to make AYP,  contracting with another organization to run the school, turning the  operation of the school over to the state, or undertaking another action  that would result in restructuring the school’s governance.
NCLBA also establishes a federal requirement for teacher quality. It  requires that teachers across the nation be “highly qualified” in every core  subject they teach by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. In general,  NCLBA requires that teachers have a bachelor’s degree, have state  certification, and demonstrate subject area knowledge for every core  subject they teach. States also have flexibility to set the requirements that  teachers need to meet to demonstrate that they are highly qualified. In  March 2008, the state superintendent’s office and the D.C. State Board of  Education revised the District’s highly qualified teacher definition to better  align it with NCLBA’s definition and allow more teachers to be considered  highly qualified. Officials from the state superintendent’s office contend  that the District’s previous highly qualified definition was more stringent  than federal standards and disqualified good teachers from joining the  D.C. public school system.
The Recovery Act was enacted in February 2009 to promote economic  recovery, make investments, and minimize and avoid reductions in state  and local government services. About $100 billion of the $787 billion funds  included in the Recovery Act are targeted to support education at the state  and local level. Some of the Recovery Act funds support existing  programs, such as Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,  as amended by NCLBA, and parts of the Individuals with Disabilities  Education Act. In addition, the new State Fiscal Stabilization Fund  provides funds to restore state support for elementary and secondary  education, public higher education, and early childhood education  programs and services. The District will receive an estimated $148 million  of Recovery Act funds to support its education programs.
section_title: Pay for Performance Initiatives
paragraphs: The current teacher compensation system used by most school districts in  the United States dates back to the 1920s and pays teachers based on their  level of education and years of experience. However, many school  districts have begun to experiment with alternative methods of  compensation that reward teachers on certain elements of performance,  such as improving student achievement, filling hard-to-staff positions, and  taking on additional responsibilities. Some school districts offer bonuses  for all staff or all teachers at schools who have met certain criteria  (usually including an increase in student achievement). Other school  districts offer differentiated pay to teachers based on characteristics other  than education and years of experience. For example, the Denver Public  School District has implemented a teacher compensation plan that allows  multiple pathways to compensation bonuses. Bonuses can be based on  professional evaluations using a standards-based system, progress toward  objectives as agreed upon by teachers and their principal, and growth in  student achievement on the Colorado Student Assessment Program.  Teachers may receive additional incentives for filling hard-to-staff  positions. The Denver plan is funded through a tax levy, federal grants,  and private funding.
National teachers’ unions approve of some types of differentiated or  incentive pay. Specifically, the American Federation of Teachers, which is  the parent union of the Washington Teachers’ Union, has taken the  position that teacher compensation plans could include financial  incentives to teachers who acquire additional knowledge and skills or  agree to teach in low-performing and hard-to-staff schools. In addition, the  American Federation of Teachers supports incentive pay for school-wide  improvement.
section_title: Early Initiatives Are Focused on Improving Student Achievement and DCPS Is Modifying 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 and implemented a new staffing model designed to give all  students access to art, music, and physical education classes. 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. Restructuring will be ongoing as the vast majority of DCPS schools  are in some form of school improvement status under NCLBA. In addition,  DCPS and the state superintendent’s office are planning and developing  new ways to use data to monitor student achievement and school  performance. DCPS is refocusing or revising its approach to many of these  initiatives as it continues to implement them.
subsections: section_title: DCPS Quickly Implemented Many Separate Initiatives to Improve Overall Student Performance and DCPS Is Refocusing Its Approach as It Moves Forward
paragraphs: During the first 2 years of reform, DCPS quickly implemented various  initiatives intended to improve student achievement. For example, to  improve students’ basic skills and standardized test scores in reading and  math, DCPS introduced targeted interventions for students struggling in  math and reading and provided additional instruction and practice to  improve students’ responses to open-ended questions, including test  questions. DCPS also introduced Saturday classes primarily targeted to  students in grades 3 through 12 who were on the cusp of meeting  academic targets on standardized tests. It also introduced initiatives  designed to address student motivation and behavior. For example, DCPS  piloted the Capital Gains program with the specific goals of improving  student engagement, and ultimately student learning, by offering financial  incentives to students for attendance, academic performance, and other  positive behaviors. Table 1 provides a list of DCPS’s major initiatives to  improve student outcomes, as well as descriptions and the status of these  initiatives.
Recently, the Chancellor 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. The Chancellor noted that some  schools may have lacked 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 programs have been in  improving student achievement. While DCPS students achieved gains on  the 2008 state-wide test, increasing between 8 and 11 percentage points in  math and reading for both elementary and secondary levels, it is unclear  whether these gains can be attributed to the current reform efforts or to  prior efforts.  While DCPS officials told us that it is generally difficult to  isolate and quantify the impact of any single program on student  achievement, they were able to review an analysis of reading scores  conducted by the vendor of one of its early reading programs. The  vendor’s analysis showed that on some tests DCPS students who  participated in the reading program generally scored higher than those  who did not. Further, DCPS officials told us they plan to analyze, in late  summer of 2009, student outcomes, including state-wide test scores, to  assess the effectiveness of various interventions.
In addition, DCPS officials told us the success of the math and reading  initiatives depended in part on how well teachers implemented them in the  classroom. They 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 defined “effective” teaching prior to the  rollout of the above initiatives, officials told us that moving forward, they  will focus on practicing effective teaching, as opposed to implementing  various disparate programs. DCPS is developing a framework that is  intended to help teachers understand the priorities moving forward,  including understanding what students are expected to learn for each  subject, how to prepare lessons, and effective teaching methods to be  used. According to DCPS officials, this framework will be aligned to  teacher evaluations. DCPS plans to implement this framework by the  beginning of the 2009-2010 school year.
section_title: DCPS Encountered Challenges Allocating Teachers across Schools and Is Revising Its Approach for the 2009- 2010 School Year
paragraphs: In an effort to ensure that all students would have access to certain  subjects and supports, DCPS 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 also was  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.  Principals then chose how to staff the school based on the amount of  funding available, staffing requirements, and their perception of the  school’s needs. Consequently, some schools—especially smaller schools— did not have the student enrollment to support programs, such as music  and art, and other schools that had the funds to support those programs  opted not to do so. While the new staffing model ensures a core staff at all  schools regardless of enrollment, DCPS allowed principals to request  changes based on their school’s needs. However, DCPS lacked a  transparent process for making changes to the staffing allocation. In  particular, DCPS did not establish or communicate clear guidance or  criteria on how such requests would be treated. Further, DCPS granted or  denied requests for changes to the original staffing allocation on a school- by-school basis, and it is unclear whether similar requests were treated in  a consistent manner. A more transparent process, one that made public  their rationale for 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 some schools received less per pupil funding than others  with similar student populations. In addition, DCPS officials told us that  in some cases, the changes to the original staffing model resulted in  schools being granted allocations beyond their budgeted amounts.
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.
section_title: DCPS Closed 23 Schools Primarily Due to Low Enrollment, Restructured 22 Other Schools as Required by NCLBA, and Is Changing Its Process for Selecting Restructuring Options
paragraphs: During the summer of 2008, DCPS closed 23 schools primarily due to low  student enrollment. Students from the closed schools, about 5,000  students according to DCPS, enrolled in 1 of 26 schools, referred to as  receiving schools. DCPS updated facilities at these receiving schools to  accommodate the influx of students from the newly closed schools. In  addition, to assist these students and schools with the transition that this  reorganization created, DCPS offered a more comprehensive version of its  staffing model. In addition to the core staff of the standard staffing model,  DCPS allocated additional staff, such as school psychologists and math  coaches to the receiving schools. During the consolidation effort, DCPS  also created several prekindergarten through grade 8 schools in some  cases where elementary schools were underenrolled. In addition,  according to DCPS, these prekindergarten through grade 8 schools were  intended to create a smoother transition to middle school and reduce the  number of elementary schools with different grade levels preparing  students for the same middle or junior high school. By closing the 23  underenrolled schools, DCPS estimates it was able to redirect $15 million  from administrative and facility costs to support these additional staff. The  eight principals we interviewed at receiving schools provided mixed  reports about the adequacy of their staffing allocations. On the one hand,  three principals reported having adequate staff, and two others cited  minor issues. The remaining three principals cited issues such as teacher  skill levels, teacher vacancies, and inadequate training to accommodate an  influx of special education students.
In addition, as required by NCLBA, DCPS restructured 22 of its lowest  performing schools for the 2008-2009 school year after the schools failed  to meet academic targets for 6 consecutive years. NCLBA specifies five  options for restructuring schools, including replacing selected staff or  contracting with another organization or company to run the school (table  2 lists the various NCLBA options and the options DCPS selected for the  2008-2009 school year). At 18 of the 22 schools in restructuring, DCPS  replaced the school staff—principals, teachers, and/or administrative  support staff—who were deemed relevant to the failure to meet academic  targets. For the remaining schools in restructuring, DCPS elected to  contract with other organizations or undertake other actions, such as  adding more intensive school-level services to support students and  families.
Restructuring underperforming schools will likely be an ongoing initiative  for DCPS, as 89 of its 118 schools are in some form of school  improvement status. (See fig. 2 for more details on DCPS’s school  improvement status.)
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 (i.e., 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. For example, the initial process called for review teams  to visit each school once, which according to DCPS officials, did not allow  the teams to obtain sufficient evidence to evaluate the schools’ condition.  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.
In addition, DCPS officials told us they cannot continue to rely on  replacing teachers and principals as the primary restructuring option  because DCPS cannot terminate the teachers, and moving these teachers  to other schools may undermine the District’s reform efforts. DCPS did not  assess its capacity for replacing staff at schools restructured in the 2008- 2009 school year. According to DCPS, nearly half of the 160 teachers that  were removed from these schools had to be placed at 38 other DCPS  schools. For the 2009-2010 school year, DCPS has decided to replace  select staff at 6 of the 13 schools that will be restructured. (For more  details, see the section on teacher and principal quality later in this  report.)
section_title: DCPS and the State Superintendent’s Office Are Working to Enhance and Create Data Systems to Monitor Student and School Performance
paragraphs: 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 it made improvements to its  primary student data system so central office users can better monitor  school performance. For example, DCPS officials reported that they  consolidated several student data systems by February 2009, including the  system containing standardized test scores, into the primary student data  system with the intent to improve data accuracy and consistency. They  also told us they added software to the primary student data system that  enabled central office employees to develop monthly reports of schools’  performance data, such as attendance and test scores. DCPS plans to  eventually use these monthly reports to enable school leaders to better  monitor student progress, and plans to develop an internal Web site that  compiles various student and school information in one place for key  stakeholders including central office staff and principals. However, 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. DCPS has not  yet announced when the project will be completed. See table 3 for more  details about key DCPS data initiatives and their status.
The state superintendent’s office also is developing a longitudinal  database, called the Statewide Longitudinal Education Data Warehouse  (SLED) that is intended to allow DCPS and other stakeholders to access a  broad array of information, including standardized test scores of students  and information on teachers. SLED is intended to allow the District to  track student registration and movement among DCPS’s schools and the  public charter schools more accurately, as well as expand the District’s  ability to monitor student achievement and growth over time. 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. (See table 4 for  more details about the status of key SLED deliverables.) This link is to  provide DCPS with data on the classes students enrolled in, the teachers  that taught the classes, any academic interventions students received,  students’ grades and test scores, and student demographics.
section_title: DCPS Replaced Teachers and Principals and Introduced Professional Development Initiatives, but Encountered Challenges in Implementation
paragraphs: DCPS is attempting to improve the quality of its teacher and principal  workforce by hiring new teachers and principals and by providing  professional development. 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. However, 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. In  addition, DCPS introduced professional development initiatives for  teachers and principals, but late decisions about the program for teachers  led to inconsistent implementation.
subsections: section_title: DCPS Focused on a Workforce Replacement Strategy to Strengthen the Quality of Teachers and Principals, but Is Unsure New Staff Are an Improvement
paragraphs: DCPS focused on a workforce replacement strategy to strengthen teacher  and principal quality. DCPS maintains that the quality of teachers is the  single greatest determinant to improving student achievement, and a  growing body of research has shown that teacher quality is a significant  factor in improving student academic performance. Yet it is often  difficult to remove teachers for performance issues beyond their initial, or  probationary, years in a given school system. For example, in the 2006- 2007 school year, only 1 teacher was removed from DCPS for poor  performance out of more than 4,000 teachers. Representatives from the  Washington Teachers’ Union agreed that there were several poor  performing teachers in DCPS, but stated that the 2-year probationary  period is the appropriate time to identify and dismiss poor teachers at will.
DCPS began implementing its teacher replacement strategy near the end  of the 2007-2008 school year. Specifically, about one-fifth of the teachers  and one-third of the principals resigned, retired, or were terminated from  the school system at the end of the 2007-2008 school year. DCPS  terminated about 350 teachers, approximately 100 of whom were released  for underperformance at the end of their probationary period, when tenure  decisions were made. The remaining 250 teachers were terminated  because they did not meet specified time frames to become highly  qualified under NCLBA. An additional 400 teachers accepted financial  incentives offered by DCPS to resign or retire in the spring of 2008. A  DCPS official told us there is anecdotal evidence suggesting DCPS lost  some quality teachers through the contract buyouts, but officials noted  that DCPS did not have measures in place to deter effective teachers from  accepting the buyouts. In addition, DCPS did not renew the contracts of 42  principals, citing their failure to improve student achievement on  standardized tests and to adequately implement school-wide programs.
To replace the teachers and principals who left the system, DCPS  launched a nationwide recruitment effort for the 2008-2009 school year.  DCPS hired 566 teachers and 46 principals for the 2008-2009 school year.  Of the 566 teachers, 395 were hired from traditional backgrounds or other  school systems and 171 came from nontraditional paths such as the D.C.  Teaching Fellows program and Teach for America. (See fig. 3 for more  details about the flow of teachers into and out of DCPS between the 2007- 2008 and 2008-2009 school years.)
However, DCPS did not have a new teacher contract in place due to  ongoing negotiations with the Washington Teachers’ Union and officials  told us this may have hindered their efforts to attract top-quality teachers.  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. Under the plan, which has been in negotiation with the Washington  Teachers’ Union since November 2007, teachers could voluntarily  relinquish job protections in exchange for base salaries and bonuses  totaling over $100,000 per school year. This plan relies on over $200  million in contributions from private foundations to fund the teacher  contract, including salary increases and professional development.  According to the Chancellor, private foundations continue to pledge their  support, even with the current economic downturn. DCPS officials told us  the higher annual salaries and bonuses would be sustainable with public  funds if private funding is not available when the 5-year contract expires.
In addition, an official told us DCPS does not have an adequate means to  assess whether its teacher workforce improved between the 2007-2008 and  2008-2009 school years because the current teacher evaluation system is  not an effective way to assess teacher performance. Under this evaluation  system, principals evaluate teachers’ subject matter knowledge, classroom  management skills, and adherence to academic standards, among other  elements. However, this system does not measure teachers’ impact on  student achievement, which, according to DCPS, is a key factor in  evaluating teacher effectiveness. In addition, according to DCPS, teacher  evaluations conducted in prior years did not adequately distinguish  excellent from poor performance—almost all teachers received  satisfactory ratings. As a result, DCPS officials told us they cannot  determine the quality of the 566 new teachers relative to the 817 teachers  who left the system.
The current teacher evaluation system remains the primary mechanism for  identifying teachers considered ineffective. During the 2008-2009 school  year, principals used the evaluation system to place 147 tenured teachers  deemed underperforming on 90-day improvement plans. At the end of 90  school days, principals decide whether to retain or terminate these  teachers. In prior years, DCPS did not use the 90-day process to this  extent.
DCPS plans to revise its teacher evaluation process to more directly link  teacher performance to student achievement. The proposed system  includes a value-added component that would measure teachers, in part,  on their ability to improve students’ standardized test scores over the  course of a school year. This value-added measure would only apply to  about 20 percent of the teacher workforce, since not all grades and  subjects are tested. DCPS plans to use a less formal student achievement  measure for teachers in nontested grades and subjects in the short term,  but is working to increase the number of teachers for whom student  achievement growth data are available. In addition, DCPS’s proposed  evaluation system would add classroom observations by third-party  observers, called master teachers, who would be knowledgeable about  teaching the relevant subject matter and grade level, to supplement school  administrators’ observations of teachers. To solicit input on the proposed  evaluation system, the Chancellor held a series of sessions in spring 2009  with teachers, teacher coaches, and other school staff, and engaged the  Washington Teachers’ Union. DCPS officials told us that the feedback was  generally positive and that teachers found the proposed evaluation system  to be fair, transparent, and an improvement over the current evaluation.
However, some teachers were concerned about using students’ test scores  as part of the evaluation.
For the 2007-2008 school year, DCPS revised the principal evaluation  system, which holds principals accountable for improvements in students’  standardized test scores and achieving other standards. DCPS will be able  to use this evaluation system to determine if principals performed better  during the 2008-2009 school year than in 2007-2008.
section_title: DCPS Introduced Teacher Coaches and a Principals’ Academy to Provide Professional Development and Improve Skills, but Encountered Challenges in Implementation
paragraphs: In addition to the workforce replacement strategy, DCPS changed the way  in which it develops its teacher workforce. DCPS began placing teacher  coaches in schools to help teachers increase student achievement at their  workplaces. Previously, DCPS’s teacher training was not systematic or  aligned with the school district’s goals. 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.  DCPS officials told us their decision to implement school-based teacher  coaches was based on research demonstrating gains in student  achievement as a result of teacher coaches collaborating with teachers to  improve instruction. For the 2008-2009 school year, teacher coaches  focused on helping new teachers and teachers with students in grades 3  through 10 in reading and math instruction. For example, teacher coaches,  at the direction of principals, 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.
Late hiring of teacher coaches, however, affected the implementation of  the professional development plan for the 2008-2009 school year. DCPS  officials told us they made the decision to hire teacher coaches after their  review of school restructuring plans in June 2008. DCPS officials told us  that, as a result of this late decision, they were unable to adequately  recruit a sufficient number of qualified staff to fill these positions.  Specifically, qualified teacher coach applicants had accepted jobs  elsewhere, since many school systems recruit staff from February through  April.
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). As of late January 2009, there were 157 teacher coaches  working on-site in the District’s public schools, with 14 total vacancies.  Each vacancy represents a school without the full support (either a  reading coach or both a reading coach and a math coach) that DCPS  wanted to provide. As a result, 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 unclear on their responsibilities  and how to work with teachers, and received some conflicting guidance  from principals. For example, these officials told us that some principals  did not assign teacher coaches to their intended position. At the beginning  of the school year, some principals assigned coaches to cover classes for  absent teachers or to evaluate teachers—a practice not allowed under  union rules—meaning the coaches were not able to work with teachers.
DCPS is also seeking to improve the quality of principals through the  Principals Academy developed for the 2008-2009 school year. Consistent  with DCPS’s belief that principals should be their schools’ instructional  leaders, the academy’s goals include improving principals’ leadership  skills, helping them interpret student test scores, and providing advice on  how to use this information to improve their schools. The Principals  Academy convenes monthly and also includes differentiated professional  development workshops based on principals’ individual needs.
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 plan is a “state-level” strategic plan that covers  the District’s public schools (and public charter schools). This plan and  DCPS’s strategic plan each contain elements GAO has identified as key to  an effective plan, such as aligning short-term objectives to long-term  goals in order to delineate how to attain those goals. 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 has not yet developed a method for ensuring more  consistent stakeholder involvement.
subsections: section_title: Both the State-Level and DCPS Strategic Plan Were Developed with Stakeholder Involvement and Contain Many Elements of Effective Plans
paragraphs: 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). The plan was developed with stakeholder involvement  throughout the process. 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 particular, they told us  they involved DCPS and the D.C. Deputy Mayor of Education’s Office in  discussions of the plan. In addition, in September 2008, the state  superintendent’s office held one public forum to solicit stakeholder input  on the draft of the document, and accepted comments on the draft on their  Web site. The office released a revised version of the plan within a month  of the public forum. Stakeholder involvement in formulating strategic  plans allows relevant stakeholders to share their views and concerns. In  addition, it affords stakeholders a way to understand the rationale for  certain decisions. Ultimately, stakeholder involvement can result in  increasing stakeholder support, or ownership, of the strategic plan.
The state-level plan details the state-level strategy for improving education  in the District and delineates accountability measures for DCPS and the  public charter schools. In addition, the state-level plan states the mission,  vision, and goals of the agency. It includes three broad, long-term goals: to  have all children ready for school, all schools ready to prepare students for  success, and all District residents ready to be successful in the 21st  century economy. Overall, the plan includes many key elements of an  effective strategic plan such as the inclusion of objectives that delineate  how the state superintendent’s office intends to attain each of its goals.  The short-term objectives are supported by various strategies, objective  measures, and performance targets. For example, one objective under the  goal of having the District’s schools ready to prepare students for success  is to ensure that all students receive rigorous instruction. This objective is  broken down into objective measures, such as the percentage of  elementary students scoring proficient or above on the state test. Further,  the plan specifies annual performance targets for this objective for the  years 2008 to 2013. See table 5 for more details on the elements of the  state-level strategic plan.
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 at  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.
The DCPS 5-year strategic plan outlines the organization’s vision and  goals, and includes many elements of an effective strategic plan. For  example the plan explains how DCPS’s six broad goals are interrelated  and how they support the vision. (Table 5 lists the six DCPS goals).
In addition, the DCPS plan describes the condition of DCPS prior to the  reform effort, the progress made to date, and the steps needed to achieve  the long-term goals. However, the DCPS plan does not systematically  delineate measurable outcomes with clear time frames and does not  always identify key external factors that could increase the risk that an  initiative may fail. For example, several objectives are aimed at improving  teacher quality; however, the plan lacks specific targets for measuring the  expected magnitude of such an improvement. Without such targets, it will  be difficult for the public to evaluate DCPS’s progress toward improving  its teacher workforce. In addition, while the strategic plan discusses  increased performance-based pay for teachers, it does not specify the cost  or explicitly mention the reliance on outside funding streams to achieve  the increases. Yet, the reliance on outside funding for the initial 5 years is  a risk that is not within DCPS’s control. Table 6 contains some key  elements of the state-level and DCPS’s strategic plans.
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.
section_title: DCPS Has Recently Increased Its Efforts to Involve Stakeholders in Various Initiatives, However It Has Not Systematically Included Stakeholders
paragraphs: DCPS officials have several planned and ongoing efforts to involve  stakeholders in planning, implementing, and evaluating various initiatives.  Stakeholder involvement can be instrumental in these areas because  stakeholders can bring different knowledge, points of view, and  experiences to planning and implementing reform efforts. 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 by holding 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 introduced monthly community forums in July 2008. These forums  were generally informational sessions on topics chosen by DCPS officials,  and were followed by questions from the audience. In some cases, such as  the three forums focused on the strategic plan, DCPS officials facilitated  discussions to elicit feedback. DCPS officials told us their efforts to  involve students in reform efforts included a student leadership group that  met regarding student concerns, and which was credited by DCPS officials  for changes in the school lunch program as well as substantial changes to  the discipline policy. DCPS also involved other stakeholders, such as  parent organizations and the Washington Teachers’ Union in its process of  changing the discipline policy. In addition, DCPS officials cited the  Chancellor’s response to e-mail communications as a form of stakeholder  involvement. While such communications may have provided stakeholders  with a means of connecting to the Chancellor, e-mail communications are  generally not public and do not lead to public debate or discourse.
In spring 2008, DCPS also conducted parent and student surveys to assess  stakeholder satisfaction with DCPS schools. While DCPS officials told us  they have completed the analysis of the parent survey, they have not yet  released the results. Further, DCPS did not receive the student survey data  until February 2009 due to complications with a vendor who was paid to  collect these data. As a result of the delays, DCPS officials told us they  have been unable to use student survey responses to inform decisions  relevant to the 2008-2009 school year. However, officials said they will be  able to use the information as a baseline for future surveys.
However, such activities do not ensure systematic stakeholder input in  planning, implementing, and monitoring key initiatives. During our review,  DCPS officials told us that stakeholder involvement was important to their  reform efforts and that DCPS was taking steps to increase stakeholder  involvement. However in some cases, 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 to inform DCPS’s  initial proposals regarding school closures and consolidations, although  DCPS did hold numerous meetings after the initial proposal, before  finalizing decisions. Similarly, stakeholders told us DCPS did not include  them in deliberations and decisions about the establishment of  prekindergarten to grade 8 models at some schools. Representatives from  one community organization told us that some parents had concerns about  the structure and academic setting at the prekindergarten to grade 8  schools, but did not have a venue to express those concerns before  decisions about grade configurations were made.
In addition, DCPS did not seek input from key stakeholders during 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 throughout DCPS.  DCPS officials told us that they had not planned for the number of changes  that were requested by principals. In particular, they told us that the vast  majority of school principals requested changes to their initial staffing  allocations. Stakeholders did not have a timely opportunity to raise  concerns on the potential risks in implementing the staffing model, such as  the uneven distribution of resources across schools and overspending at  some schools. Stakeholders also said they were not given sufficient time to  review the budget for the 2008-2009 school year or to understand the  changes in the budget made after the school year began. DCPS officials  told us the budget planning process for the 2010-2011 school year involved  stakeholders extensively. In particular, DCPS invited the public to a  preliminary budget meeting and also provided training on the budget  process to some key stakeholders, such as school principals and  community members.
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 from 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 lack of  stakeholder involvement in decisions that were eventually reversed or  revised. For example, changes made to school bus routes without  consulting parents meant several route changes were later reversed  because they proved to be unworkable.
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 and the state superintendent’s office have taken steps to improve  accountability and performance of their offices. For example, both offices  have started implementation of new individual employee performance  management systems. While DCPS has taken steps to improve  accountability and link its individual performance management system to  organizational goals, it has not completed this process or used the results  of surveys to improve central office operations.
subsections: section_title: Both DCPS and the State Superintendent’s Office Developed and Implemented a Performance Management System, and DCPS Has Not Yet Aligned Key Aspects of the System to Organizational Goals
paragraphs: To increase accountability of its central office, DCPS developed an  accountability system and an individual performance management system  for central office departments and employees. The central office, which is  responsible for providing academic and nonacademic supports to DCPS,  had operated without such accountability systems prior to the recent  reform efforts. For example, previously, performance evaluations were not  conducted for most DCPS staff. As a result, central office employees were  not held accountable for the quality of services they provided to support  schools.
To improve accountability for central office departments, DCPS developed  departmental scorecards, as a part of its performance management  system, to identify and assess performance expectations for each  department. For example, the scorecard for the Office of Data and  Accountability includes measures such as the number of users of the  primary student data system. 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. For example, at the accountability meeting we  attended, DCPS officials from the Office of Data and Accountability used  scorecards to discuss their progress with collecting attendance data and  setting up processes to strengthen the collection of these data. According  to DCPS officials, some departmental leaders have established similar  accountability meetings with their staff, although these are not required.
In January 2008, DCPS implemented a new performance management  system for employees. Performance management systems for employees  are generally used to set individual expectations, rate and reward  individual performance, and plan work. DCPS developed its new  performance management system in an effort to improve support services  to the schools by improving the accountability and performance of central  office employees. In particular, in past school years, teachers complained  about not getting paid on time and beginning the school year with  inadequate supplies. DCPS’s performance management system was put in  place, in part, to improve these functions in the central office.
While DCPS developed and instituted a new performance management  system, it did not fully align individual performance expectations and  evaluations to organizational goals, which GAO has identified as a key  practice of effective individual performance management systems. For  example, while DCPS took important steps in developing and  implementing its system, such as training department managers to set  expectations and give feedback to employees, DCPS has not yet  established a uniform policy for setting expectations. Further, DCPS has  not yet instituted a system to track how and when such expectations are  set. Instead, individual managers established processes specific to their  office or department and, as a result, DCPS could not ensure that  individual performance expectations were aligned to organizational goals  as outlined in the DCPS 5-year strategic plan or in its annual performance  plans. Without such alignment, employees may not be familiar with the  overall organizational goals and their daily activities may not reflect these  goals. An explicit alignment of daily activities with broader desired results  helps individuals connect their daily activities and organizational goals and  encourages individuals to focus on their roles and responsibilities to help  achieve the broader goals. In addition, as we previously reported, DCPS  developed individual performance evaluations in December 2007 as a part  of its performance management system in order to assess central office  employees’ performance. Such individual performance evaluations are  used to rate central office employees on several core competencies twice  a year. For example, employees are rated on how well they demonstrate a  commitment to providing high-quality and timely customer service to both  external and internal customers of District schools. 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 link the individual  performance evaluations with organizational goals in the summer of 2009  to ensure greater accountability in supporting schools.
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. This new system, scheduled to be fully operational  by December 2009, will replace the two separate systems that had  operated on different cycles. According to an official from this office, the  new system is uniform, user friendly, and allows for an easier transfer of  performance information from manager to employee. In addition, 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.
section_title: DCPS Surveyed Staff at Schools to Measure Satisfaction with Central Office Services; However, DCPS Has Not Yet Used Survey Results to Improve Operations
paragraphs: In November 2007, DCPS conducted a survey of employees within District  schools, including teachers and principals, to gauge satisfaction with  District services, including central office services during the 2007-2008  school year. Personnel at the schools are key stakeholders in improving  central office functions, and their feedback is important to help DCPS  ensure resources are targeted to the highest priorities. The American  Institutes for Research partnered with DCPS to administer the online  survey of teachers, principals, aides, clerks, counselors, project  directors/coordinators, related service providers, and other staff. They  were asked to provide feedback on numerous topics, including the work  environment, facilities and maintenance, professional development, and  leadership, as well as central office services. With regard to central office  services, the survey’s questions were focused on personnel services,  budget and procurement services, district departments and support  services, food and nutrition services, and technology and data.
Of those staff that completed the survey, more were satisfied with their  schools, such as their work environment and fellow staff members, than  with the support system provided by the central office. For example, they  were least satisfied with the central office’s ability to provide goods and  services in a timely manner, compute paychecks accurately, and allot  budgeted funds when needed. In addition, staff who completed the survey  were least satisfied with facilities office’s responsiveness to requests for  school repairs, saying they were not completed in a timely manner. DCPS  officials told us the results of the survey were shared internally with  different central office departments in 2008, and focus groups were  formed within a month of the release of the survey results to develop  specific action plans to address identified issues. However, DCPS officials  were unable to provide us with specific examples of improvements made  in central office operations as a result of the survey. Three of the eight  principals we met with regarding the school consolidation process stated  that they could not always access budgeted funds when needed. In  addition, four of the eight principals noted that school repairs were not  made in a timely manner. One principal told us his payroll was often  inaccurate, and some teachers were not always paid on time. DCPS  officials told us another staff survey will be administered in spring 2009.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The challenge of reforming DCPS is daunting. NCLBA requires 100 percent  proficiency by 2014 and the District’s students scored significantly lower  than the District’s own proficiency targets for 2008 and below students in  most other urban districts. In the past, support for reform efforts has  waned as student achievement did not improve, as buildings deteriorated,  and as new superintendents were ushered in every few years to address  these problems.
The need for rapid reform and results is acute and the District’s Mayor and  his education team have taken bold steps—such as implementing various  classroom-based initiatives, reorganizing schools, and replacing teachers  and principals—to improve the learning environment of the District’s  students and ultimately increase student achievement. However, DCPS  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. In  addition, DCPS did not gauge its internal capacity prior to implementing  certain key initiatives, which, if addressed in the future, could help ensure  the sustainability of initiatives. Without these planning processes, an  organization risks having to revamp initiatives, leading to delays and  compromising the implementation of timely, critical work. While having  these planning processes in place will not eliminate all implementation  issues, it will help to identify and mitigate risks associated with  implementing bold initiatives and identify needed changes in the early  stages of the initiative. Furthermore, a lack of these planning processes  can result in decisions that are made on an ad hoc basis with resources  unevenly distributed as was the case with the District’s new staffing  model. Ultimately, the lack of such processes while planning and  implementing initiatives has impeded the success of some of DCPS’s  initiatives and could impede the District’s continued success and progress  in reforming its school system.
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. Stakeholders  can then share their expertise and experience, and views on how these  demands and resources can be balanced. Continuing to operate without a  more formal mechanism—other than community forums or e-mails—for  stakeholder involvement could diminish support for the reform efforts,  undermine their sustainability, and ultimately compromise the potential  gains in student achievement. 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.
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 taken steps to align 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.
section_title: Recommendations to the Mayor of the District of Columbia
paragraphs: To help ensure the transparency, success, and sustainability of 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.
To strengthen the new individual performance management system and  ensure greater accountability of central office employees in their role  supporting schools, we recommend that the Mayor direct DCPS to link  individual performance evaluations to the agency’s overall goals.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DCPS, the Deputy Mayor of  Education, and to the Office of the State Superintendent of Education for  review and comment. These offices provided written comments on a draft  of this report, which are reproduced in appendix I. They also provided  technical comments, which we incorporated when appropriate. All three  entities 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.
Specifically, District officials stated that we did not measure DCPS’s  progress in terms of the condition of the school system prior to the reform  efforts, but instead measured progress in terms of whether the ultimate  goals of the reform efforts had been met. We disagree. We did not measure  DCPS’s progress against “ultimate goals.” As is now reflected in the  paragraph describing our approach to this study, we measured the  progress of ongoing reform efforts by comparing DCPS’s progress to its  own time frames for implementing various initiatives. In conducting our  review, we spoke with numerous DCPS officials and repeatedly asked for  documents and time frames in order to objectively gauge the District’s  progress. In some cases, DCPS officials did not provide us with such  documentation; however, we made a concerted effort to accurately  identify current initiatives and related time frames. In addition, we  measured completed initiatives against recognized standards. For  example, we determined whether or not the DCPS and the state-level  strategic plans contained elements that GAO has identified as key to an  effective plan.
In addition, we described the conditions that existed prior to the reform  efforts in order to provide context to the steps DCPS has taken. For  example, we noted that prior to the reform efforts, DCPS’s teacher training  was not systematic or aligned with the school district’s goals and that  DCPS is now offering on-site professional development to improve teacher  skills. We also cited the lack of individual performance evaluations for  central office employees prior to the reform efforts that DCPS has made to  improve in this area. Furthermore, we made every effort to provide  balance and objectivity in our findings. For example, some stakeholders,  such as parents groups, union representatives, and the D.C. Council, told  us that DCPS made key decisions without their involvement. We revisited  this issue with DCPS officials and described several of their efforts to  improve stakeholder involvement in the initial draft of our report.
We visited four urban school districts with mayoral governance and  conducted in-depth interviews to help us better understand the magnitude  of the challenges that officials encountered while trying to reform their  school systems. We also spoke with superintendents and officials from  mayors’ offices in these districts about the key lessons they learned as  they reformed their school systems, including the risks associated with not  having systematic stakeholder involvement.
Finally, the District’s education offices stated in their response that we  characterized the state superintendent’s efforts as positive and those of  DCPS more negatively. While drafting this report, we intentionally avoided  any comparison between DCPS and the state superintendent’s office, as  their tasks and challenges are dissimilar. After reviewing our draft, DCPS  provided us with more information and documentation regarding efforts to  involve stakeholders in the development of the October 2008 draft of the  DCPS strategic plan and steps taken to introduce alignment of  accountability measures to organizational goals. We made changes to our  report to reflect the updated information.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its  issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the D.C.  Mayor’s Office, relevant congressional committees, and other interested  parties. Copies will also be made available upon request. In addition, the  report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-7215 or ashbyc@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the  last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in  appendix II.
section_title: Appendix I: Comments from the D.C. Mayor’s Office and District Education Offices
section_title: Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Elizabeth Morrison, Assistant  Director; Nagla’a El-Hodiri, Analyst-in-Charge; Sheranda Campbell; Jeff  Miller; and Vernette Shaw made significant contributions to this report in  all aspects of the work. Susan Aschoff, Mark Bird, Timothy Case, Bryon  Gordon, Jeffrey Heit, Janice Latimer, Jean McSween, Sandy Silzer, and  Sarah Veale provided analytical assistance. Doreen Feldman and Sheila  McCoy provided legal support and Lise Levie and Kimberly Siegal verified  our findings.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: District of Columbia Public Schools: While Early Reform Efforts Tackle  Critical Management Issues, a District-wide Strategic Education Plan  Would Help Guide Long-Term Efforts. GAO-08-549T. Washington, D.C.:  March 14, 2008.
District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program: Additional  Policies and Procedures Would Improve Internal Controls and Program  Operations. GAO-08-9. Washington, D.C.: November 1, 2007.
No Child Left Behind Act: Education Should Clarify Guidance and  Address Potential Compliance Issues for Schools in Corrective Action  and Restructuring Status. GAO-07-1035. Washington, D.C.: September 5,  2007  Charter Schools: Oversight Practices in the District of Columbia.  GAO-05-490. Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2005.
Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementing Steps to Assist Mergers and  Organizational Transformation. GAO-03-669. Washington, D.C.: July 2,  2003.
Results-Oriented Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage between Individual  Performance and Organizational Success. GAO-03-488. Washington, D.C.:  March 14, 2003.
Agencies’ Strategic Plans Under GPRA: Key Questions to Facilitate  Congressional Review (Version 1). GAO/GGD-10.1.16. Washington, D.C.:  May 1997.
Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance  and Results Act. GAO/GGD-96-118. Washington, D.C.: June 1996.