Council Chairman Vincent Gray 
Opening Statement
City Council Committee on the Whole Hearing on Reduction in Force at DCPS
October 29, 2009

October 29, 2009

What seems to be lost in this debate is that virtually all of the District’s leadership, including the council, signed on to school reform. But no one signed on to chaos, disrespect of teachers and parents, and students being subjected to the classroom disruptions resulting from this RIF.

I do not come to this discussion as a spectator. I am a lifelong Washingtonian and graduate of DCPS who loves this city deeply. Moreover, my late wife was a teacher.

I come to this with a fervent commitment to make a difference for our children, who matter the most. We have to work through these problems together with scapegoating our teachers, who are easy to blame. If we stop this finger-pointing we might reach a common accord for the benefit of our children.

I am Vincent C. Gray, chairman of the council of the District of Columbia, and I am calling to order this public hearing on the District of Columbia Public Schools 2009-2010 equalization process and reduction in force, or RIF.

Today’s Public Oversight Roundtable is one component of the Committee of the Whole’s ongoing oversight of the causes, implementation, and impact of the Equalization and RIF.

This comprehensive review includes three hearings:

During this review, the Committee is seeking to cover three areas of interest and consequence to the District of Columbia’s efforts to reform public education.

1. the cause of the Reduction in Force – an alleged approx. $43.9 million budget gap that precipitated reductions to local school budgets and a RIF at the local school level.

2. the implementation of the equalization process and accompanying reducations.

3. the impact that the equalization process has had on students, families, and schools.

Before discussing each of these and then hearing from our two witnesses, let me be very clear about our motives.

Frankly, I would prefer to be here today engaging in an open, inclusive dialogue around how we as a city can come together to support our city’s children through increasing early childhood educational opportunities or providing teachers and local schools the support they need to succeed.

Instead, this committee has been forced to conduct oversight on a budget gap that remains a puzzle; investigate why teachers were escorted out of schools by security, why LSRT’s (local school restructuring teams) were shut out of their local school decision-making process, and why our students have had to witness resulting chaos.

Let me take a few additional moments to review the council’s oversight objectives. First and foremost, the committee continues to seek answers as to why DCPS is facing an alleged $43.9 million budget shortfall in FY 2010, and why the Fenty Administration blames the Council for this shortfall.

After careful review of the budget, I can report, as I did on October 16 that the council made several changes to DCPS in a larger effort to close a massive budget gap of $340 million projected in FY 2010. These changes amount to $20.5 million, or less than 2 percent of the total DCPS budget.

Despite multiple, inconsistent, and misleading explanations by the executive, it remains unclear as to what caused a $43.9 million budget gap and why the council was blamed for the Administration’s decision to close this gap by taking a hatchet to local school budgets and RIFing teachers.

The initial explanation placed this gap entirely at the feet of the Council. In a September 16 press release, the Administration claimed it was moving forward because of “budget reductions made this summer by the D.C. Council to DCPS and the Public Charter Schools.” The next day, The Washington Post reported that DCPS officials claimed these reductions totaled nearly $40 million.

A second characterization was publicly stated on October 2. This time the Administration indicated the total budget gap of $40 million came from a Council reduction of $20.7 million; the elimination of “additional school-level resources” that had been carried in the central office budget, and $13.1 million in central cuts gained by “carefully reviewing current projects and responsibilities along with future plans.” No additional detail was provided.

On October 7, DCPS released a “Frequently Asked Questions” sheet that characterized their budget situation in a slightly different, but yet no less confusing way. According to the administration, the $43.9 million includes summer school reductions by the council ($9.5 million) — that is the case, though, the last time I looked summer school begins in June of next year — and “additional school level resources that had been carried in the central office budget ($20.5 million), and costs associated with leave and severance for terminated employees ($3 million). To be clear, DCPS actually included the cost of the RIF as a cause for the RIF, which seems odd to me.

The FAQ also made mention of $820 million in expenses for DCPS in FY 2010. This is the first time this committee has heard of such a number and contrasts sharply with the budget submitted by the Mayor back in March and again in July.

The latest version, which arrived last night, states the gap comes from $21 million that includes the cost of excess teachers and non-teaching staff, $20 million in council cuts to DCPS, and $3 million in RIF-related expenses.

We will review each of these three budget gap components with administration officials today. We want to know why DCPS had $20 million in excess teachers when they had a summer hiring frenzy of more than 900 teachers; second, why DCPS apparently chose to take a hatchet to local school budgets rather than opting for other approaches; and, we want to know why DCPS includes the cost of the RIF, nearly $3 million as part of the reason for the RIF.

For review, on July 31, the Council approved an FY 10 budget that allocated $779,574,000 to DCPS. In August, the Mayor signed that budget and made no objection to, or even mentioned the $20.7 million, although he vetoed an unrelated line item involving the state board of education.

The Fiscal Year 2010 DCPS budget the council approved was $779.6 million — $15 million above Fiscal Year 2009’s $764.6 million. The FY 10 personal (staffing) services budget for DCPS increased by $22.3 million above Fiscal Year 2009 from $548.2 million to $570.5 million for FY 10. Prior to this hearing, in order to ensure our numbers were accurate, we consulted the office of the CFO and received written confirmation from the CFO that these budget figures were accurate.

Now, according to DCPS, over 934 employees were hired between March and August of 2009. This is a 3-fold increase over the previous decade’s average number of new employees. The Committee wants to understand the reasons for this unprecedented hiring. And we want to understand whether the hiring program itself caused the alleged budget shortfall, and whether DCPS was authorized under the Budget Request Act to actually hire these individuals in the first place.

Eight weeks after this hiring program was largely completed, DCPS then executed the RIF that resulted in the dismissal of 388 employees. Numbers obtained from the Washington Teachers Union. 229 to 266 of these employees were teachers who were dismissed from their positions.

Since these teachers and other staff were let go, the Mayor has stated publicly that low-performing teachers were the ones RIFfed. Frankly, while I certainly believe low-performing teachers should be given the support to do better, they should be asked to leave if they do not improve.

However, DCPS’ own instructions on the RIF indicate this supposedly was not based on performance.

Principals were the central players in this RIF. These principals, a majority of whom, according to the Council of School Officers, have been hired in the past two years and a quarter of whom had been on the job for less than a month, were to base 75 percent of their decision to lay off a teacher on “office or school needs.” Reduction-in-Force of School-Based Staff that is an ambiguous directive.

According to DCPS documentation, this term is defined to “include curriculum-specialized education, degrees, licenses, or areas of expertise.” The remaining 25 percent of the decision was to be based on performance (10 percent of the total); relevant supplemental experience (10 percent), and length of service (5 percent).

The committee will also discuss the impact of these reductions — particularly the apparent chaos that occurred during the reduction in the workforce.

About a week ago, I read an editorial in the Baltimore Sun that compared reform efforts in Baltimore to those in the District of Columbia. (Maryland Voices, 10/19/09) The writer stated: There’s little doubt the personal leadership styles of the two CEOs have largely determined how reform efforts have been received. “In Public, at least Mr. [Andres] Alonso eschews drama. Ms. Rhee, by contrast, once appeared on the cover of a national news magazine wielding a broom to symbolize her intention of cleaning house.” The editorial concludes: “Low-key and calm as things here may seem in comparison to our sister city down the road, Baltimore may already be on track to get there sooner than anyone things . . . [and] may have the best chance of success of any city in the nation.”

What seems to be lose in this debate is that virtually all of the District’s leadership, including the council, signed on to school reform. But no one signed on to chaos, disrespect of teachers and parents, and students being subjected to disruptions resulting from the RIF.

I do not come to this discussion as a spectator. I am a lifelong Washingtonian and graduate of DCPS who loves this city deeply. Moreover, my late wife was a teacher, as was my mother-in-law.