COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ROUNDTABLE REPORT
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004

TO:

All Councilmembers

FROM:

Councilmember David Grosso, Chairperson

Committee on Education

DATE:

July 27, 2015

SUBJECT:

Report on the Committee on Educations Roundtables on the Summative of

Evaluation of the Public Education System in the District of Columbia as required
by the Public Education Reform Amendment Act of 2007

On June 3, 2015 and June 22, 2015 the Committee on Education held a two-part public
roundtable on Summative of Evaluation of the Public Education System in the District of
Columbia as required by the Public Education Reform Amendment Act of 2007. This report is a
summary of those gatherings.
I. BACKGROUND
In 2007, the Council passed the Public Education Reform Amendment Act of 2007 (PERAA).
The laws purpose was to allow District of Columbia leaders flexibility so they could make bold
changes in governance and policy to improve the school system, and thus student academic
outcomes, which had underperformed for decades. Periodic reports from a variety of civic
organizations, along with media accounts and reports from congressional hearings pointed to
several factors as responsible for the low academic achievement in the District: incompetent
management, lack of fiscal oversight, unequal and inefficient distribution of resources to schools
and a political history of racially divided neighborhoods and wards. 1 The Committee of the
Whole report for the legislation noted that the public school system was in a state of
emergency and that PERAA would help accelerate change and move beyond the status quo.
Chiefly, PERAA transferred authority and control over D.C. Public Schools (DCPS) from the
elected Board of Education to the mayor. In addition to giving control of the public schools to
the mayor, the law called for the creation of new entities to govern and administer the public
schools, change lines of authority, and improve coordination among city offices. Through
PERAA, the Deputy Mayor for Education (DME), a new State Board of Education (State
Board) to replace the former Board of Education, and the Office of the State Superintendent of
Education (OSSE), which was to take over the state functions carried out by the former Board
of Education. Additionally, PERAA established the Office of the Ombudsman to provide parents
1

National Research Council of the National Academies, An Evaluation of Public Schools of the District of
Columbia: Reform in a Changing Landscape, 2015. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/21743/an-evaluation-of-the-publicschools-of-the-district-of-columbia

Committee on Education
Report on PERAA Roundtables

July 27, 2015

Page 2 of 15

and others a new avenue to seek information and lodge complaints, a function that was
performed by the former Board of Education.
PERAA also expanded the authority of the Public Charter School Board (PCSB), which was
established by Congress in 1995. PERAA transferred to the PCSB authority the 18 public charter
schools that were authorized by the former Board of Education. The legislation also granted
PCSB the authority to specifying poor academic performance as grounds for charter revocation
and required review of public charter schools every 3 years instead of every 5 years.
Further, the legislation required that each year beginning in 2008, the Mayor submit an
independent evaluation of the citys public school under PERAA that includes an assessment of
business practices, human resources practices, academic plans, and annual achievements. After
five years, PERAA required a summative evaluation of the public school system. The evaluation
team was asked to assess whether the laws expectations have been met and whether the
governance changes, and policies developed as a result, have indeed led to improved
coordination, accountability, improved conditions for learning in the schools, and improved
academic outcomes for students.
Through the D.C. Auditor, the smaller annual reports as required by PERAA were completed by
Education Consortium on Research and Evaluation (EdCORE), a research team led by the
George Washington Universitys Graduate School of Education and Human Development. These
were not completed annually as outlined in the law, but instead were just five reports on aspects
of education reform in D.C. schools. Those reports can be found online on the D.C. Auditors
website: http://www.dcauditor.org/reports. For the summative evaluation as required under
PERAA, the District contracted with the National Research Council (NRC) to carry out the
PERAA evaluation work. The Committee for the Five-Year, as it was called, was co-chaired by
Carl Cohn, Director of the Urban Leadership Program and Clinical Professor in the School of
Educational Studies at Claremont Graduate University, and Lorraine McDonnell, Professor of
Political Science at the University of California-Santa Barbara.
The NRC report was formally released on June 3, 2015 titled An Evaluation of Public Schools of
the District of Columbia: Reform in a Changing Landscape. The period covered by the
evaluation is 2009-2013.
II. JUNE 3 ROUNDTABLE
The purpose of the Committee on Education holding a roundtable on June 3, 2015 was to
provide members of the NRC Committee for the Five-Year the opportunity to publicly describe
their methodology, and formally present their findings and recommendations. Dr. Diana Pullin, a
member of the NRC Committee and Professor of Education Law and Policy at the Lynch School
of Education and the School of Law at Boston College, testified along with Dr. Cohn. They
began by describing the evaluation framework, the evaluation approach, sources and types of
evidence, research and data limitations, and finally the evaluation Committees conclusions and
recommendations.

Committee on Education
Report on PERAA Roundtables

July 27, 2015

Page 3 of 15

The following is a brief summary of the conclusions and recommendations from the NRC report
and Dr. Cohns and Dr. Pullins presentation before the Committee on Education:
Governance
The District has executed most of what was called for in PERAA, but the evaluation
Committee notes three problems:
1. The interagency coordination agency called for by PERAA is not in place;
2. The Office of the State Superintendent of Education is not functioning effectively;
and
3. The District of Columbia does not have fully operational comprehensive
infrastructure for data that meets PERAAs goals or its own needs in its role as a
state government.

PERAAs objective of improving coordination among the Deputy Mayor for Education,
the State Board of Education, and the Office of the State Superintendent of Education has
not been completely met. Further, coordination among DCPS and the charter schools is
limited.

Accountability to the public requires that information about administrative operations be

transparent, easily accessible, and that mechanisms be available for D.C. residents to
express their preferences and concerns. While reestablishing the Office of the
Ombudsman after a long hiatus was a positive step, the budgeting process for education
expenditures is neither simpler no more transparent than it was before PERAA.

PERAAs objective of establishing clear lines of authority has not been completely met.
Evaluators wrote in the report: the governance structure with respect to learning
opportunities is diffuse: no one entity has both the responsibility and the authority for
monitoring the provision of education and supports for students, particularly those at risk
for school failure, across both the DCPS and charter schools.

The current governance structure for D.C.s public schools represents a reasonable
response to PERAA, although the goals have not yet been fully met. In light of this, the
evaluation Committee points to two questions for the District to consider: (1) whether the
current oversight structure provides sufficient monitoring of the educational opportunities
provided to students attending DCPS and public charter schools throughout D.C., and (2)
how best to oversee the education of all students attending all publicly funded schools.

Improving Teacher Quality

The evaluation Committees conclusions and recommendations with regard to improving teacher
quality is limited to DCPS as complete data on educator evaluations for public charter schools
was not accessible or available to the evaluation Committee.
The design of DCPS IMPACT teacher evaluation tool is generally consistent with
research, bud some aspects of rating procedures need attention. DCPS should monitor
how well IMPACT meets its intended goals, especially for improving teaching in highneeds schools.

Committee on Education
Report on PERAA Roundtables

July 27, 2015

Page 4 of 15

Available data show some desired changes in DCPS workforce but not whether IMPACT
has met its own goals.

Students in high-needs areas have the least access to DCPS teachers with the highest
IMPACT rating.

Evaluation of DCPS teachers alone is not enough. D.C. needs more complete data about
both DCPS and charter educators.

Learning Conditions
Despite some improvements, notable disparities exist in educational experiences across
groups and Wards.

No one body within the existing governance structure has both responsibility and
authority for monitoring learning conditions across DCPS and public charter schools.
Monitoring and oversight of high-need students is not adequate.

D.C. needs to maintain and make accessible data on high-needs students, student climate,
and academic supports.

Outcomes
DC CAS and NAEP scores show some improvement in terms of student achievement, but
overall academic achievement is still low.

There are stark gaps in academic achievement and graduation rates across student groups,
especially English Language Learners, students with disability, and students growing up
in poverty.

D.C. needs to maintain and make accessible more complete outcomes data.

The NRC Committee put forth the following recommendations for D.C. policy and education
stakeholders to consider:
Recommendation 1
The District of Columbia should have a comprehensive data warehouse that makes basic
information about the school system available in one place that is readily accessible online to
parents, the community, and researchers. That information should include both data on the
school system as a whole and at more detailed levels.
An optimal data warehouse would:
Integrate and track data that is relevant to schooling and students within across DCPS and
the charter schools and across the education, justice, and human service agencies;
Provide data about learning conditions in all public schools, DCPS and the charters, and
their students covering: students with particular needs, including those with disabilities,
English language learners, and students in poverty; school climate, including discipline,
attendance, safety, and facilities; and academic supports for learning;

Committee on Education
Report on PERAA Roundtables

July 27, 2015

Page 5 of 15

Provide data about outcomes for all public school students, in DCPS and the charters,
performance on test covering graduation rates, college entrance exams, attendance and
truancy, course taking and completion, college enrollment and progression, and career
outcomes; and
Be useful and accessible to researchers, educators, parents, and the public. The format
should be structured to allow ready access to data and analysis in ways that can be
customized to the needs of different users, including parents and other non-specialists.

Recommendation 2
The District of Columbia should establish institutional arrangements that will support ongoing
independent evaluation of its public education system. Whatever structure is developed, three
conditions should be met:
The evaluation entity should have sufficient resources to collect and analyze
primary data, including at the school level, rather than being entirely dependent on
city-generated test and administrative data.
Evaluations should be conducted by experts with the qualifications needed for the
specific task. Ideally, the structure will allow the city to benefit from the expertise
of external researchers and practitioners specializing in teaching and learning,
curriculum, testing and measurement, and finance and policy.
All products produced by the entity should undergo rigorous peer review.
Recommendation 3
The District of Columbias primary objective for its public schools should be to address the
serious and persistent disparities in learning opportunities and academic progress that are evident
across student groups and neighborhoods, with equal attention to DCPS and public charter
schools. To that end, the NRC Committee recommends that the city attend to:
Establishing centralized, system-wide monitoring and oversight of all public schools and
their students, with particular attention to high-need student groups;
The fair distribution of educational resources across wards and neighborhoods;
Fostering more effective collaboration among public agencies and with the private sector
to encourage cross-sector problem solving for the citys schools;
Centrally collecting and making available more accessible, useful, and transparent data
about D.C. public schools, including charters, tailored to the diverse groups with a stake
in the system; and
Exploring measures to strengthen public trust in education in a diverse, highly mobile
city.
Members of the Committee on Education and the Council engaged in several rounds of questions
with Dr. Cohn and Dr. Pullin. An area of discussion was the question of governance. Per the
NRC report, the Districts public education system had operated under 17 different governance
and administrative structures since 1804.2 Only a few jurisdictions have moved into a second and
third generation of mayoral control, and yet the evaluation Committee believed that our
governance structure still lacks clarity. The evaluators wrote, the governance structure with
2

National Research Council of the National Academies, An Evaluation of Public Schools of the District of
Columbia: Reform in a Changing Landscape, p. 2-8.

Committee on Education
Report on PERAA Roundtables

July 27, 2015

Page 6 of 15

respect to learning opportunities is diffuse: no one entity has both the responsibility and the
authority for monitoring the provision of education and supports for students, particularly those
at risk for school failure, across both the DCPS and charter schools. The report goes on to say
that a single entity should be responsible for this essential function systemwide: to meet this
responsibility the entity in charge will need to maintain and make publicly accessible data about
students with particular needs, including those with disabilities, English Language Learners, and
students in poverty; school climate, including discipline, attendance, safety and facilities; and
academic supports for learning. Technically, there are three agencies within the existing
governance structure that have a statewide function. Chairman Grosso asked whether it should be
OSSE to take on this responsibility as the state education agency (SEA) or if we should be
looking to stand up the DME more in this regard. Dr. Cohn responded that the evaluation does
not make a specific recommendation, and that they are agnostic on who it should be. However,
the Committee on Education believes that one can infer from the reports discussion of the
strength and performance of OSSE that this should be a function of the SEA. Further, later in the
roundtable during an exchange on monitoring and oversight responsibility for special education
students and English Language Learners particularly when it comes to charter schools, Cohn and
Pullin did state that while PCSB is supposed to do the regular review, it is OSSE that should
have the oversight responsibility.
Chairman Grosso asked how the NRC Committee took into account the independence of public
charter schools and the fact that in D.C. charter authority was created from a federal law when
conducting their work. Many education stakeholders believe there are limits to what can be done
in terms of oversight and monitoring of public charter schools for this very reason. The NRC
report stated that the charter sector has grown much faster than the drafters of the PERAA
legislation anticipated, and therefore, they may not have included provisions that would provide
more clear lines of oversight, accountability, and coordination. Going forward, this was an area
that the NRC Committee recommended that District leaders look closely at in terms of future
reform efforts.
But in order for one entity to have responsibility for both DCPS and public charters, one needs
authority. Dr. Pullin stated that she believed there were provisions of the law that are not being
pursued to its fullest extent when it comes to public charter schools, and that she did not believe
that any new legislation or re-regulation was needed. For example, in her interpretation of the
laws currently on the books, there is a structure of authority within OSSE and the PCSB to gather
the data on a variety of different topics for purposes of accountability and oversight without
additional legislation. Dr. Cohn echoed Dr. Pullins belief that more could be done in terms of
monitoring and oversight for public charter schools. Dr. Cohn expressed that when they were
meeting on Capitol Hill prior to the roundtable to discuss their findings with congressional
members, congressional staff alluded that the District has more control over public charter
schools than what the city thinks. Dr. Pullin reminded the Committee that when it comes to
statute there are interpretative choices. This point came up again when discussing the State
Board of Education.
In Chapter 2 of the NRC report, the evaluators write: PERAA included additional provisions in
the legislation to ensure that the new State Board of Education (SBOE) would not just be an
advisory board, but would have policy authority with regard to state standards and accountability

Committee on Education
Report on PERAA Roundtables

July 27, 2015

Page 7 of 15

plans, and the certification and accreditation of teacher preparation programs. But then in
Chapter 3, evaluators state that the State Board does not have the power to initiate policies, only
to approve or not approve policies suggested by OSSE thus making it essentially an advisory
boardsomething the Committee on Education has heard often. In this case, Dr. Pullin stated
that there are disparities in the way the law was written and what was actually implemented years
later. Unfortunately, the NRC Committee provided no suggestion on what State Boards role
should be going forward.
The Committee on Education was surprised that the final NRC report was not as quantitativebased as one would expect from that institution. However, within the report, the evaluators
discuss that they had a very difficult time getting access to the necessary data. Councilmember
Allen asked if this was due to the data not being available; the agencies simply not having the
capacity to respond to the request; or the agencies simply filibustering. Staff from the NRC
stated that there is not one central location for data on schools in D.C. It was not that people were
not helpful during their evaluation process, but rather that the information was dispersed. In
some cases the information is not available to the public, and in other cases NRC was told they
have to go to each local education agencies (LEA) to request the information. 3 Without a
central location for data it is hard to say what is being used, what is being collected, or what is
even available. Staff from the NRC also noted that staff turnover in the education agencies also
made it difficult to know what was available. This was part of the impetus for the NRC
Committee recommending that D.C. invest in a comprehensive data warehouse that makes basic
information about the school system available in one place that is readily accessible online to
parents, the community, and researchers. In Chapter 2 of the NRC report, they include examples
of other jurisdictions that are more advanced than D.C. when it comes to data.
During the roundtable, Councilmembers also asked Cohn and Pullin about the NRC Committees
findings around improving teachers. This is one area they stated where having more information
from charter schools would be beneficial. As noted earlier, this chapter of the NRC report
focuses on DCPS solely. Overall, the NRC Committee found that the teacher evaluation system
for DCPS is doing what it was designed to do, but more evaluation is necessary to determine if
IMPACT is incentivizing teachers to flee from high-poverty schools because they can do better
in lower poverty schools. Further, the NRC Committee recommended that DCPS consider using
more growth over time data and expand the evaluation criteria beyond the heavy reliance on
twice-a-year classroom observations.
Finally, on the issue of academic achievement, Cohn and Pullin stated that despite some
improvements on DC CAS and the NAEP scores, disparities still exist. The NRC report
recommends that being to report student performance in terms of how students have progressed
overtime, as simply reporting proficiency rates can be limiting. Councilmembers asked about
how the pace of improvement could quicken. We have more and more people choosing to move
into D.C. and stay to raise their families. They are still anxious about the public education system
and believed that PERAA was supposed to bring dramatic academic improvements. Dr. Cohn,
who is well-regarded in the education field as a former superintendent who specializes in
3

Since each charter school is its own local education agency (LEA), there are currently 64 different LEAs in the
District of Columbia.

Committee on Education
Report on PERAA Roundtables

July 27, 2015

Page 8 of 15

turnaround, said that patience is necessary for the endeavor that any school district in the nation
takes on with regard to the achievement gap. Dr. Cohn stated that the stability with regard to
leadership is an improvement and the fact that this governance structure and policy reforms have
been maintained over 3 mayors is hopeful. Overall, Cohn and Pullin expressed that the NRC
Committee believed that while there is still room for improvement, PERAA is working.
III. JUNE 22 ROUNDTABLE
On June 22, 2015, the Committee on Education held part two of the roundtable on PERAA. This
allowed the public and all of the government entities discussed in the evaluationthe Deputy
Mayor for Education, Office of the State Superintendent for Education, DC Public Schools, the
DC Public Charter School Board, the State Board of Education, and the Office of the
Ombudsmanabout three weeks to review the NRC report and publically respond to the reports
contents, findings, and recommendations. Although the evaluation period does not include the
last two years, the Committee is concerned that some challenges raised by the report still persist,
especially with regard to data, interagency coordination, and the growing achievement gap. This
roundtable marked the first time since PERAA that all of the agencies in the education cluster
testified at a Council hearing or roundtable together.
Public witnesses echoed some of the concerns that were raised in the NRC report. Notably, a few
recent DCPS alumni testified about their experience in school and transition to college. They
knew first hand of the reports findings about the inequity in terms of access to rigorous course
offerings and opportunities. One alum transferred from Duke Ellington School of the Arts an
application-only DCPS school to H.D. Woodson High School in Ward 7 when he was in high
school; he remarked that the difference was stark. Collectively, they spoke of the need for more
rigorous Advanced Placement classes to give students more success in transitioning to college.
Other witnesses testified about the need for more meaningful engagement with the public and
better coordination among the agencies. They desired not only a discussion but for agencies to
follow-up with community after receiving input. One area where individuals desired more
engagement was during the budget formulation process for DCPS. One witness recommended
that we extend the DCPS budget timeline by the mayor providing DCPS their mark in January
instead of waiting for the February revenue estimates to allow for more conversation. 4 In terms
of public charter schools, one witness stated that the PCSB needed to improve its public
engagement strategies. When parents reach out to the PCSB it is because they feel they cannot
resolve an issue with a school. PCSBs approach of simply forwarding a compliant back to the
subject of the compliant is viewed as more dismissive than engaging by families and
communities.5
Public witnesses also rallied around the NRC reports recommendation for the creation of a data
warehouse. It was not lost on the public that the authors of the NRC report experienced issues
4

Testimony from Soumya Bhat presented on behalf of the DC Fiscal Policy Institute before the Committee on
Education on June 22, 2015.
5
Testimony from Stacey Eunnae presented on behalf of Advocates for Justice and Education Inc before the
Committee on Education on June 22, 2015.

Committee on Education
Report on PERAA Roundtables

July 27, 2015

Page 9 of 15

with access to timely data and that this hindered their ability to do a truly independent evaluation
of what has happened with public education from 2009-2013. Two of the reports six research
chapters omit almost any discussion of charter schools for this reason. As one witness remarked,
How is it not a violation of the right to public education that the public has no information
readily available about two major issues in educationteacher quality and learning conditions
for nearly half our public education students in D.C.?6 Without good, reliable data, how can the
D.C. commit to a model of steady measurement and analysis going forward?
Several public witnesses were also critical of the NRC report. While the report has a chapter
talking about improving teacher quality, one witness noted that the evaluators did not interview
teachers. The report also did not take a robust look at teacher retention under the DCPS teacher
evaluation system IMPACT, which some contend causes more and more teachers to voluntarily
leave DCPS. It should be noted that the NRC evaluators also did not speak to students for their
report or take into account student satisfaction surveys. Another witness was disappointed that
the NRC report does not discuss the impact of mayoral control on school facilities or offer
recommendations on this front. One witness also expressed dissatisfaction with what they
interpreted as the evaluators call for centralized oversight for all public schoolsa
recommendation they felt would threaten the autonomy and independence of public charter
schools.
Executive Witnesses
Joyanna Smith, the Ombudsman for Public Education, presented her thoughts on the PERAA
report. As noted earlier, the Office of the Ombudsman was originally established by PERAA to
serve two primary functions: first, serve as a new avenue for parents to seek information and
lodge complaints, and second, as a way to provide greater transparency and accountability for
public education in D.C. Ombudsman Smith testified that she believes this function is still very
much necessary as demonstrated by the more than 500 requests for assistance that they have
accepted and resolved in school year 2014-2015. That is more than triple the caseload from the
offices first year back in operation during school year 2013-2014. Going forward, Ombudsman
Smith stated that she hopes the Ombudsmans office can become more engaged in policy
discussions around truancy, special education, and school discipline, which are issues her office
deals with daily with students and families. Ombudsman Smith also endorsed the NRC reports
recommendation for a central data warehouse of information.
Jack Jacobson, President of the DC State Board of Education, presented testimony on behalf of
the State Board. President Jacobson shared that the State Board agreed with the
recommendations that we need to address disparities across student groups and wards, gather
data on teacher effectiveness for both sectors across D.C., and that D.C. should make data easily
accessible to key educational stakeholders. President Jacobson stated that State Board disagreed
with the NRC reports assertions regarding their authority and accomplishments. Page 3-12 of
the report noted that, The SBOE office is small and the board does not have a strong presence in
the city, perhaps in part because its functions are limited and its relationship with other education
agencies is not clear. [] We did not find any evidence of other activities the board has
6

Testimony from Valerie Jablow presented before the Committee on Education, June 22, 2015.

Committee on Education
Report on PERAA Roundtables

July 27, 2015

Page 10 of 15

undertaken, though it meets regularly. President Jacobson stated that state boards of education
are integral to the governance of public education in the United States and noted that without
them or OSSE, the District of Columbia would not have qualified for the $75 million Race to the
Top grant because the signatures of the agency head and the board president were required for all
applicants. During rounds of questions, Chairman Grosso provided President Jacobson an
opportunity to recap other activities the State Board has undertaken. From what the Committee
on Education has seen produced from the State Board in the past two years, the Chairman did not
feel that the NRCs assessment of the State Boards activities was a completely unfair statement.
President Jacobson spoke of graduation requirements and health and wellness standards.
President Jacobson admitted that capacity is an issue for the State Board, but expressed that he
believes that the State Board could be an effective policy body completing mini reports that
survey the system on issues. He did note, however, that in order to fulfill this role, the State
Board would need more staff.
Scott Pearson, the Executive Director of the Public Charter School Board, testified that the
PERAA report confirms what many who work in education in D.C. already believed, that much
progress has been made in the eight years since the passage of PERAA, but that there is more
work to do. Mr. Pearson commented on PERAAs impact on public charter schools, specifically
through granting the PCSB authority to close schools for poor academic performance. PCSB
instituted a rigorous Performance Management Framework (PMF), rating schools in three
tiers. In the past three and a half year, PCSB has closed 18 charter school or charter campuses,
the vast majority of which were for poor performance. Of the 23 schools that have been rated
Tier 3 on the PMF, 16 have been closed. During this same period, PCSB has approved 16 new
schools to open using a higher bar for their application than in the earlier years. Mr. Pearson also
provided comment on some of the recommendations from the NRC report. He noted that while
the PCSB supports the recommendation for a comprehensive data warehouse, he believes that
much of the data asked for by the report can be found by parents and policymakers on the
LearnDC website. He urged caution before implementing additional reporting burdens that
would take away resources from teaching and learning. Further, Mr. Pearson noted that data on
teacher qualifications, teacher evaluations, and coursework, inputs the NRC evaluators wanted to
review, are highly burdensome to collect and report. PCSBs approach is not to measure inputs
or learning conditions as the report states, but rather to focus on outcomesthe performance
of the students in each school. Mr. Pearson concluded his prepared remarks discussing two areas
where the PCSB agreed with the report the need for improved services for students with special
needs and the possibility for increased collaboration across education agencies and sectors.
Again, though there have been improvements, there is still room to do better.
Kaya Henderson, Chancellor of D.C. Public Schools, testified that the changes she has seen in
the education space in D.C. from before PERAA (prior to 2007) until now are stark. Prior to
2007, school opening was an annual mess with buildings not being ready and schools often
opening with vacant teaching positions. Today, DCPS opens schools fully staffed, teachers are
paid on time, and buildings are cleaned and ready for students arrival before school starts. Prior
to 2007, there was no meaningful evaluation system for any employees. Today, all DCPS staff
are evaluated annually. Prior to 2007, there was not a universally implemented curriculum.
Today, DCPS has fully implemented Common Core. And finally, prior to 2007, leaders at DCPS
changed every few years, in some cases annually. Chancellor Henderson recently celebrated her

Committee on Education
Report on PERAA Roundtables

July 27, 2015

Page 11 of 15

fifth year as Chancellor. Chancellor Henderson commented the NRC reports discussion of the
growing achievement gap in D.C. She said that while she is thrilled by the improvement in
student groups, she is dismayed by the disparity. This has been the impetus behind DCPS work
with the lowest 40 performing schools, the Empowering Males of Color initiative that was
announced earlier this year, the Ninth Grade Academies, the launch of Cornerstone
assignments and DCPS 3-year focus on literacy.7 One of the conclusions in the PERAA report
was that students in high-needs areas have the least access to DCPS teachers with the highest
IMPACT rating. On this matter, Chancellor Henderson stated that while DCPS is trying various
strategies, including working to improve the quality of instruction at all of their schools,
teachers are not widgets who can be moved from place to place regardless of their interests.
She is not satisfied with the distribution of the workforce, but noted that even financial
inducements have a limited effect on moving the best teachers to struggling schools. Chancellor
Henderson stated she remains concerned with the rate of improvement in our schools, but that
the stability that the PERAA has helped establish has contributed to the long-term success of our
school district.
Hanseul Kang, the State Superintendent at the Office of the State Superintendent, testified that
the broad conclusions of the NRC report as it pertains to OSSEthat the performance has not
been consistently effective in the years since its inception and that it is not always fully trusted
by stakeholdersalign with what she has heard in her early conversations with stakeholders.8
Superintendent Kang noted that while OSSE has does some very hard and very good work, there
is no question that the challenges of standing up a large new agency, leadership and staff
turnover, and lack of management structures, systems and routines have held OSSE back from
performing at a consistently high level. These are all areas where Superintendent Kang believes
that OSSE can and will turnaround. Superintendent Kang commented on the reports
recommendations and findings regarding data. She stated that while D.C.s Statewide
Longitudinal Education Data System (SLED) had some early challenges, the system has
grown considerably. For example, in the past, data on homeless students was often incomplete
and out of date. OSSE now has a direct data fed from homeless shelters to SLED, which allows
schools to know which students may need additional services, as well as to ensure the schools
receive the proper at-risk funding to support those services. Although SLED will continue to add
features overtime, Superintendent Kang acknowledges that SLED is quite different than a data
warehouse. This will require additional funding investments. OSSE plans to share its roadmap
for building out the data systems and infrastructure needed to accomplish this by December
2015.
Superintendent Kang spoke to OSSEs work in oversight, monitoring, and providing LEAs with
professional development and technical assistance for work with special education students and
English Language Learners (ELL), two subgroups that the NRC report noted great disparities
in terms of achievement. Over the past year, OSSE has worked with stakeholders to develop a
six year strategic plan for improving outcomes for students with disabilities in D.C. that was
submitted to the U.S. Department of Education. She also announced that this summer OSSE is
launching a summer ELL institute in August to kick off a citywide planning effort around ELL
7

Several of these DCPS initiatives were launched post-2013, outside of the NRC reports evaluation period.
Ms. Kang nomination as the head of OSSE was unanimously approved by the Council on June 2, 2015 (PR210136; R21-0110).
8

Committee on Education
Report on PERAA Roundtables

July 27, 2015

Page 12 of 15

support. Another concern raised in the NRC report was the lack of access to excellent and
effective teachers in every ward. Earlier this month, OSSE submitted a report to the U.S.
Department of Education on D.C.s plan to ensure equitable access to excellent educators for all
students. In their review of the data, the found that while students in Wards 7 and 8 are less
likely to be assigned to an effective teacher; they did not find significant gaps when measuring
the access to experienced teachers. In all of these areas there is still work to be done to improve.
Finally, Jennifer Niles, the Deputy Mayor for Education, presented testimony on the PERAA
findings. In terms of the need for a single entity to be responsible for all public education,
Deputy Mayor Niles stated that clearly should be the Mayor with the DME as her agent. She
noted that DCPS and OSSE now report directly to her, which is a significant change in the
structure of the education cluster. Deputy Mayor Niles also commented to the NRCs finding
that the Interagency Coordination and Serve Integration Committee (ICSIC) established by
PERAA is no longer in existence and that interagency coordination must be improved. She stated
that the DMEs office has also been central in developments of cross-sector collaboration with
My School DC, the unified application for public charter schools lottery and DCPS out-ofboundary lottery, and the Equity Reports. Further, Deputy Mayor Niles spoke of the new cross
sector task force made of LEAs, parents, and government agencies. The goals of the task force
include: identifying cross sector solutions to some of the greatest educational needs of the city;
developing a framework for coordinated decision making structures and processes on school
opening, closing, and facility planning; and develop methods for information sharing with the
public and across sectors. While ICSIC does not exist, Deputy Mayor Niles stated, those
connections and relationships are now part of the fabric of District government. On data,
Deputy Mayor shared that by the fall, DME will be launching a data resource page to support
planning, where they will be sharing cross sector data with the public in an effort to better
understand the education landscape in the city. Deputy Mayor Niles was also supportive of
ongoing evaluation of the D.C. public education system, which was a recommendation of NRC
report.
Discussion
The discussion with the government witnesses started around the question of student
achievement and the opportunity gap. During the first roundtable, Dr. Cohn noted that patience is
necessary for the endeavor that any urban school district in the nation takes on with regard to the
achievement gap. In theory, many would agree with him, but D.C. also has a lot of new parents
who have moved into the District that are getting restless. Chairman Grosso asked whether or not
we were doing ourselves a disservice by only ever reporting our achievement data in terms of
proficiency instead of growth. Chancellor Henderson and Mr. Pearson both agreed that the new
focus on growth is part of the evolution of the reform effort; pre-2010 we lived and died on
proficiency. Now, PCSBs PMF tool takes into account performance growth and DCPS does
goal setting with principals on growth metrics. Much of how OSSE, and the education cluster,
reports performance is tied to the accountability system and plan outlined in D.C.s application
for a waiver from the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
Superintendent Kang said that OSSE is launching this conversation now with stakeholders with
the possibility of doing an amendment to their ESEA waiver in this regard.

Committee on Education
Report on PERAA Roundtables

July 27, 2015

Page 13 of 15

Even with these changes, Chancellor Henderson stated that while she has the same sense of
urgency as parents, we have an unhealthy expectation on how quickly we can progress. As an
example, she noted some work that has been taking place in Chicago around increasing the high
school graduation rates. Seven years ago, Chicago Public Schools implemented Ninth Grade
Academies, a similar model that DCPS is currently utilizing in its comprehensive high schools.
Chicago is just now starting to see positive results of that work in terms of graduation rates. Dr.
Cohn, the co-chair of the Committee on the Five Year evaluation team, is nationally known for
his work to turnaround school districts. It took him 15 years to see lasting results as head of the
school district in Long Beach, CA.
Councilmembers also asked about the impact high concentrations of English Language Learners
(ELL), students with disabilities, or students considered at-risk in schools can have on
achievement. The NewSchools Venture Fund looked at 2014 DC CAS results compared with atrisk enrollment for the 2013-14 school year. Not surprisingly, they found that the percentage of
at-risk students at a school is highly correlated with proficiency on DC CAS. Out of the top ten
schools that outperformed what should be their predicted DC CAS results, only one school
had over 51 percent of their students considered at-risk. No one really had an answer on the
question of increasing socioeconomic diversity across our public schools. Chairman Grosso
asked about the Advisory Committee on Student Assignment Policies recommendation that we
create an at-risk weight for the lottery to provide more options for those students. Deputy Mayor
Niles said that this was not something that they are working on because they do not think it will
change much in terms of enrollment. It was clear, however, that there is no consensus on who is
serving what students. Mr. Pearson vehemently disagreed with statements from public witnesses
and Chancellor Henderson that DCPS is serving more at-risk, ELL, and special education
students than public charter schools. Part of this question is one about mobility a student may
be enrolled in a school in October when the enrollment count occurs, but may not be by the end
of the school year for a variety of reasons. The last time OSSE released a mobility study was in
2013 on the 2011-2012 school year. Superintendent Kang said the next study would be released
in July.
Regardless of mobility, Chancellor Henderson stated that they have found if they are able to get
an ELL student in elementary school, they are able to move those students out of ELL status.
The problem is that they are getting more and more ELL students in middle and high school. In
thinking about getting students earlier, Chairman Grosso asked where early childhood education
fits into this conversation. This was not a topic discussed in the NRC report. Witnesses said that
it was very difficult to evaluate quality when youre talking about 3 year olds. Mr. Pearson stated
that PCSB tried to measure quality for PreK3, PreK4, and kindergarten programs but found that
it was a fools errand. They all agreed, however, that D.C. has not done all it can to educate
low-income parents about the importance of prekindergarten programs and that students attend
each day.
Councilmember Allen reignited the conversation around data and the NRC reports
recommendation that D.C. needs a data warehouse. The witnesses agreed that the data warehouse
is necessary and that it should be housed at OSSE. They did, however, caution against the data
warehouse being the impetus for more reporting requirements. Chairman Grosso offered for each
agency to send to the Committee on Education their current list of local reporting requirements

Committee on Education
Report on PERAA Roundtables

July 27, 2015

Page 14 of 15

so that we can look at whats still needed and how best we can streamline in the future. Further,
the hope is that with new features to the SLED system that will come online for school year
2015-2016, LEAs will only have to report things once; for example, attendance data.
As mentioned earlier, the NRC report did discuss teacher performance, and questions regarding
their conclusions arose during this roundtable. Although the report focuses on DCPS due to lack
of charter school data on this front, Mr. Pearson said that as part of the ESEA waiver, virtually
all charter schools are required to evaluate their teachers. OSSE is also currently working with
Thurgood Marshall Academy Public Charter School and 13 additional charter LEAs to launch a
collaborative project on a model teacher evaluation system. With regard to DCPS IMPACT
evaluation tool, Chancellor Henderson reiterated her earlier statement that DCPS is not just
focused on moving highly effective teachers from one school to the next, but working to make
sure that everyone in the building is better. With this, Councilmember Alexander asked about
alternative teacher preparation programs and what both DCPS and public charter schools are
doing in this regard. Mr. Pearson and Deputy Mayor Niles spoke about KIPP and EL Haynes
Public Charter Schools starting their own capital teaching residency program, which trains
teachers and recently graduated about 100 participants. Chancellor Henderson spoke about
DCPS DC Teacher Residency program, which develops teachers over a four year period. There
will be 13 schools participating in their pilot cohort next school year.
Members also discussed the public witnesses concerns that PERAA has led to less public
engagement, particularly on budget matters. Chancellor Henderson stated that D.C. having
budget autonomy and changing the fiscal year calendar would certainly help, but there are
tradeoffs to moving budget conversations earlier in the school year. For example, it would be
difficult for DCPS to evaluate if a new initiative or program is working effectively and should be
continued in the next year. Overall she believes DCPS has gotten much better with public
engagement around the budget in recent years. In terms of public engagement with public charter
schools, Councilmembers recounted an earlier statement by a public witness about parents
feeling lost when trying to get relief from the PCSB when having issues with a school. Mr.
Pearson pushed back at the notion of the PCSB being unhelpful in resolving disputes between
families and the school. He stated that in all of these situations the appeal authority is with the
public charter schools board.
At the closing of the roundtable, Chairman Grosso asked each of the witnesses what it is that
they need in order to continue moving education reform efforts forward. Mr. Pearson said that
the PCSB would like to see the fiscal accountability and transparency legislation that was
introduced earlier this moved so that they could have better access to fiscal data for public
charter schools. Charter schools, he mentioned, would also like to do less in terms of reporting.
They acknowledge there is a tension between equity and accountability, but think its time to
recalibrate the intervals for reporting. Mr. Pearson also expressed support for DCPS getting more
flexibility in regulation to implement more innovative approaches for their schools. Chancellor
Henderson said that DCPS would appreciate the ability to spend their funding more freely and
easily. She asked that oversight and accountability be more equally distributed between DCPS
and public charter schools, as in the past much of the focus is only on DCPS. And finally, the
Chancellor said she would like to continue to engage the Committee on Education in a
collaborative way.

Committee on Education
Report on PERAA Roundtables

July 27, 2015

Page 15 of 15
IV. CONCLUSION

In the midst of the two PERAA roundtables, the Committee on Education also held eight public
townhall meetings across D.C. PERAA was a topic of conversation at each of these gatherings.
Most people would agree that the public education system in the District of Columbia has come a
long way since the passage of PERAA, but that there is still more work to be done. The
Committee agrees with that assessment. We look forward to reviewing the outcomes of the new
PARCC assessment which will define a new base in terms of where we are with student
achievement. The Committee will remain focused on efforts to close the achievement and
opportunity gaps, particularly for ELL students, students with disabilities, and students in
poverty.
As discussed in the NRC report, there still needs to be work on the governance structure for the
public education sector. While the Committee appreciates that the DME has oversight now over
both DCPS and OSSE, when it comes to public charter schools and the responsibility for those
students, their education, and learning opportunities, this is still a gray area. In a system where
almost 50 percent of the students are in public charters, its clear that the public is looking for
more checks and balances in that sector than what currently exists. The Committee hopes for
great things out of the cross-sector taskforce that the DME is currently preparing to launch.
Through the taskforces work, we hope to provide more clarity to families and community
members trying to navigate the public education system in D.C.
The Committee on Education supports the NRC Committees recommendation that the District
of Columbia create a centralized data warehouse that makes basic information about the school
system available. While some may point to the LearnDC website as a suitable alternative to a
data warehouse, the fact is that LearnDC is not designed to allow for comparison or an
aggregated look at what is happening across the sectors. At the time of this report, individuals
cannot even print in a readable format from the LearnDC website. Data warehouses make data
sets available. The Committee is committed to working with OSSE and the Executive on
identifying the funding and resources necessary to build out this important infrastructure. We
look forward to reviewing OSSEs roadmap on data systems and infrastructure in December
2015. The Committee also hopes that in this effort, OSSE will work with PCSB and public
charter schools in creating a data sharing agreement. While Mr. Pearson remarked that PCSBs
approach is not to focus on inputs, we do find them to be important particularly when it comes to
public charter schools and what the traditional system can learn from them. There is nothing
inherent about a charter school. Unless it is part of a national charter management organization
like KIPP, they are empty vessels. Therefore, what you put into these schools matters. We think
its important to learn more; however, the Committee is committed to reviewing existing
statutory reporting requirements to see where things can be streamlined.
Finally, the Committee supports the NRC reports recommendation that independent evaluation
of PERAA be continued and will look to invest in this effort. Periodic independent evaluations
are important to assess the quality, efficacy, and value of new programs or reforms. A successful
review that is unbiased, transparent, and fair can strengthen the public trust in our education
system. Trust, growth and highly quality performance is whats ultimately will help the District
of Columbia school reform efforts go further, faster.