Since the DCPS Full Funding Coalition rally at RFK in April, which I proudly attended, there has been a lot of action on the council in regards to school funding. In the last month alone, Council members Cropp, Fenty, and Patterson have each introduced a bill that could have a critical impact on our school budget. This is good news, as it indicates that the council is responding to the needs of our schools. However, in looking at the fine print, I found that these bills are not created equal.

Patterson’s bill would provide $10.7 million from an extra contingency fund to prevent the loss of hundreds of DCPS staff, or provide cost-of-living pay increases that, as of now, are not included in next year’s budget. Patterson’s bill is timely—especially in light of last month’s Washington Post article about looming staff cuts--and it deserves the full support of the council. Unfortunately, the bill was defeated 6-5. Voting “Yes” were Sharon Ambrose (Ward 6), David Catania (at-large), Adrian Fenty (Ward 4), Jim Graham (Ward 1), Kathy Patterson (Ward 3). Voting “No” were Kwame Brown (at-large), Linda Cropp (chair), Jack Evans (Ward 2), Phil Mendelson (at-large), Vincent Orange (ward 5), Carol Schwartz (at-large). (Vincent Grey (Ward 7) and Marion Barry (Ward 8) were not present for this critical vote.)

Now, losing teachers is never good—but losing them now would be particularly ill-timed, because of the large number of schools that stand to be declared “failing” under the No Child Left Behind accountability measures. In fact, as Mary Levy of Parents United points out, “Unless there are incredible jumps in test scores, 76 schools will be declared failing… including all senior high schools except the selective ones and all but two middle/junior highs.  This would force costly and disruptive interventions, such as replacing staff, partial outside takeovers, or extending the school day/year.”

Bottom line: DCPS has an immense challenge ahead of it next year. It will need all of its teachers and all possible resources if they are to make the necessary academic improvements. Let’s hope our Council Members vote Yes when the Bill comes up for a vote again….

* * * * *

Both the Cropp and Fenty bills acknowledge the unacceptable condition of many of our current school facilities and would provide much needed dollars for facilities improvements. But in my estimation, Fenty’s bill is far superior.

Cropp’s bill would provide $10 million for 20 years to service approximately $130 million to pay for the repair or renovation of District schools. But there are strings attached: first, to receive these dollars, DCPS must consolidate schools and dispose of underused buildings. This seems imprudent. True—right now we have excess space. However, as the city attracts residents, there could be an increase in enrollment and, thus, a demand for space. In addition, we are likely to need swing space to accommodate students during construction. Cropp’s bill unwisely requires consolidation and disposal of facilities—regardless of potential future needs.

The most prescriptive requirement of Cropp’s bill is that “priority in funding shall be given to projects that:

1. Locate new out-of-District special education programs within DCPS facilities;

2. Co-locate public charter schools within DCPS facilities;

or 3. Develop mixed-use facilities in collaboration with DC Public Libraries, the Department of Parks and Recreations, or other appropriate District agencies.”

This stipulation inhibits the Board from carrying out its functions as an independent agency of the city with the oversight responsibility for DCPS. Worse, though, is that the bill does not list as a priority those schools that are in most desperate need of modernization. Rather than simply intending to improve DCPS facilities, her bill seems to have the ulterior motive of compelling DCPS to “share” its buildings once they have been modernized.

Finally, Cropp's bill would re-establish a redundant administrative body—the Education Collaborative—as the decision-making entity that would grant approval for projects, and make the council the implementing body. (Remember the Education Collaborative? It was the bureaucratic “extra layer” established in 2004 to select a new Superintendent. It was not a particularly effective body and several good candidates went by the wayside before we hired Dr. Janey.) Each of these new requirements would undermine the independence of DCPS and its capacity to administer its own programs.

But the basic problem with Cropp’s bill is that its proposed $130 million over twenty years fails to even come close to providing the estimated $2 billion necessary to repair, modernize or rebuild DCPS’ deteriorating facilities.

In contrast, Fenty’s bill would issue up to $1 billion dollars in bonds over 30 years—over and above the $600 million currently budgeted—“to assist in financing, refinancing, or reimbursing costs of undertakings by the District to modernize, renovate, or construct public school facilities.” These bonds would be secured by the District’s general revenue, and the funds would be administered by DCPS based on the Multi-Year Facilities Plan. Unlike Cropp’s proposal, this facilities plan is not a brand-new plan that might take months to devise, but rather a refinement of the existing facilities plan ( adopted in 2001 and revised frequently), which was developed through extensive community input. Further, Fenty’s bill would reinforce the Board’s authority, rather than undermining it by requiring approval by yet another administrative entity. Equally importantly, Fenty’s bill would require an annual audit to monitor performance and adherence to the plan. Essentially, this audit would be a public progress report that would ensure a transparent system through which the Board can be held accountable to the public.

The difference between the Fenty and Cropp bills highlights the District’s choices: We can continue providing inadequate funds to DCPS and, when the system falters, take away more of its capacity to plan and manage itself. Or we can face our actual costs, create a long-term revenue stream, and empower DCPS to strengthen its administrative capacity. Securing construction bonds on the District’s general revenue—which Fenty’s bill proposes—is no small potatoes. It is a bold proposal that sends a clear message about the important position our schools play in Mr. Fenty’s vision of the District’s future. In comparison, Cropp’s bill – and her long-term view of DCPS—is simply inadequate.