The Renew-Revitalize-Reorganize (RRR) Initiative for the DC public schools proposes to place some 8,000 students into newly consolidated schools for fall 2008. Another 14,000-plus students attend schools restructuring under the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law. More than 5,000 additional students attend schools reconfiguring their grade structures and/or absorbing displaced students.

DCPS thus plans to reshuffle – with but a few months planning – more than 26,000 students, a population equivalent to that of the entire city of College Park, Md. Many more students will be affected less directly, as resources – including out-of-boundary transfer slots (see sidebar) – shift throughout the 52,000-student system.

After closing 23 schools – comprising 2.2 million square feet – DCPS would retain 12.6 million square feet, including much unused space. Each consolidation entails “priority improvements.” Four require temporary moves during modernization of permanent facilities. Two proposed moves require new bathrooms, playgrounds and other retrofits to make junior high facilities suitable for younger students.

Staffing changes for proposed closings involve 700 employees, although DCPS Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee believes “normal annual attrition” should obviate “significant staffing decreases.” Meanwhile, under NCLB legislation, more than 1,000 teachers will experience one of five federally mandated options: charter conversion, private enterprise management, complete staff replacement, state takeover or another “fundamental change in governance.”

Rhee says the RRR plan will reduce the cost of excess space and maximize educational resources, with students in newly consolidated schools the first to experience a new “comprehensive staffing model.” The plan will also “bring exciting new educational programs and opportunities to students across the District,” she says.

Critics say that 23 closings will not support comprehensive staffing or fund promised programs but, in fact, leave DCPS an annual shortfall of many millions for utilities/maintenance. Implementation and community engagement also concern many, as does the interplay between the federally mandated restructurings and the RRR proposal.

Renew-Revitalize-Reorganize
This year's maintenance/utility bill, Rhee repeatedly notes, is $50 million, while the UPSFF (uniform per student funding formula) provides only $25 million. These figures are the only financial sums in her Jan. 14 testimony to the DC Council and among the very few figures offered through months of RRR presentations.

Fewer active buildings will reduce maintenance/utility bills, and consolidated enrollments will fund comprehensive staffing in four areas: academic, wellness, administrative and enrichment. Included in this model are full-time art, music and PE/health teachers, as well as nurses, social workers, in-school suspension facilitators, math and literacy coaches, librarians and administrative staff.

“Through this plan, every ward will have excellent opportunities, such as new Montessori and early childhood programs, more high tech campuses and lab schools, fine arts schools, more gifted and talented programs, and an increased capacity to serve our historically and grossly underserved students who have special education needs,” Rhee testified. “When and where something works, we should ensure that as many students as possible have access to that program.”

In order to provide the strong programs and enhanced staffing models that our kids deserve, we must reorganize and reallocate our resources,” Rhee explained. “This plan relies on significant reorganization of the school system.”

Reorganization Risks
The significant reorganization of the RRR plan has many concerned about individual school communities and DCPS as a whole.

“Should we tinker with schools that are getting results?” Lisa Raymond, vice president of the State Board of Education, asked in her council testimony. She cautioned that “a learning community is a delicate balance of many factors” and that disturbing these communities could lead to the loss of “involved and dedicated families.”

Several school communities testified to fears about upsetting that delicate balance through proposed moves, and Councilmember Muriel Bowser (Ward 4) reported that constituents worried about successful receiving schools absorbing children from lower performing schools.

“In 25 years,” reported George Parker of the Washington Teacher's Union, “I have not yet seen a closing where logistics went smoothly.” Individual closings are difficult within a robust system; 23 simultaneous closings may be too much for a system as fragile as DCPS.

“There is no reason to believe that DCPS can handle 23 school closings,” Smith testified, “not without significant detriment to students.” In addition, he said, DCPS has not demonstrated how it will mitigate further enrollment loss – due to this reorganization and/or further down the road.

Research conducted for school leaders estimated that between 12 percent and 26 percent of students reassigned in DCPS school closings would enroll instead in charter schools. This does not include students – or teachers – lost through dissatisfaction or uncertainty regarding 2008 plans. A related concern is that closing schools could be leased to charters, further depleting DCPS enrollment and budget.

“[The system] could collapse under its own weight,” warned Iris Toyer of Parents United for DCPS.

The Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) “understands the impact of the [DCPS] reorganization and restructuring” on both public and public charter schools, said OSSE’s director of communications. And the State Board of Education is considering the relationship between public and public charter schools in its recommendations on restructuring. Still, Mary Filardo, of the 21st Century School Fund, said, there must be a system for considering budget, enrollment, and facilities of DCPS and DCPCS as a whole.

Where Are the Stakeholders?
Most witnesses at the council hearing acknowledged the necessity to close schools, although collocation was often mentioned as an alternative. Frequent comparison was made to the 2006 Master Facilities Plan, which recommended 19 closings over several years, with each school provided a hearing – as was required by law before the mayoral takeover. Out of 45 witnesses, only one in addition to the chancellor spoke in active support of RRR. Many cited omissions and errors in RRR details – often for apparent lack of engagement with school communities.

A similar theme arose in discussions of NCLB restructuring.

“This isn't exactly a collaborative process,” testified Cathy Reilly of SHAPPE (Senior High Administrators, Parents and Educators), at the State Board’s Roundtable on Restructuring, citing the chancellor's promise to consider local input and then decide on restructuring plans.

Rhee told the council that, “in a lot of cases, we are considering the consolidations that are happening as part of the restructuring.” But State Superintendent Deborah Gist – who must approve all restructuring plans – stresses that “governance changes alone will not likely produce significant changes in student performance.” In addition, Gist said through a spokesperson, “the process must be open and collaborative,” and recommendations must be “vetted by the local education agency's [DCPS] stakeholders.”

Failure to engage the community is not simply a “process” issue, many argued: it can prevent mistakes and ensure that changes are appropriate to a school's context. Councilmember Marion Barry (Ward 8) compared the administration to a neurosurgeon in haste, cutting in the wrong place.

Where's the Vision?
“I don't think you can reinvent the public school system and close the schools in one fell swoop,” says Ron McBee, an ANC commissioner (6D03) active in school communities slated for consolidation in his area. “Reinvent the school system, and let that process drive the school closings.”

“I want to talk about learning in the classroom,” says At-Large Councilmember Kwame Brown. “It's tough to motivate our kids without creative change in the classroom.”

“What’s the academic plan? The academic piece has to drive what we are doing,” Toyer testified. An entire school system cannot be reformed, she said, through “a sprinkling of a few programs.”

Vision was lacking at the school level, too, others cautioned. Slowe PTA President Terri Anomnachi, for example, testified that RRR plans were not driven by “an understanding of what [Slowe's] issues were … of why we failed,”

“We do not see that children at closing or receiving schools will be better off,” Toyer concluded.

Where’s the Benefit?
“`Renew, Revitalize, Reorganize' will enable us to provide better programs to our kids,” Rhee testified. “In order to provide the strong programs and enhanced staffing models that our kids deserve, we must reorganize and reallocate our resources … including closing schools and rightsizing the school system.”

“I'm not saying we need to close these schools to get the programs,” Rhee said when questioned, adding that the closings would not suffice for comprehensive staffing at remaining schools. Instead, the RRR commitment is to prioritize for comprehensive staffing those schools receiving students in 2008 consolidations.

Even this promise seems optimistic to Mary Levy, of the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, however.

In what she called “the gloomiest testimony [she had] ever given,” Levy compared budgets at five of the largest DCPS elementary schools and projected budgets for two proposed consolidations. “Unfortunately,” she determined, “even the largest DCPS schools lack a full program, and the consolidated schools – even if they keep their combined resources – will still lack a full program.”

In addition, Levy said, “Although larger schools can have that greater range of staff, their student/adult ratios are higher than those of small schools.” Counselors at four of the five largest schools each serve over 400 students, for example.

Moreover, DCPS will still run an annual deficit for utilities and maintenance – even if 23 schools are closed – unless the UPSFF is modified, Levy testified. Closings leave 4.3 million in excess space unfunded through UPSFF, resulting in annual shortfalls of $33 million or more. Meanwhile, Levy estimated, $14 million could be saved through the closures in maintenance, utilities, small school subsidies, food service and security. (See sidebar.)

“Is all of this about 14 million dollars?!” Councilmember Jim Graham (Ward 1) exclaimed in response to Levy's testimony. “That's a drop in the bucket when it comes to the school system.”

Brown proposed several times during the hearing that the council immediately appropriate funds for existing school buildings and comprehensive staff at each one. Rhee could not say what that would cost.

Where's the Budget?
“We are running those numbers right now,” Rhee said several times in response to council inquiries. The Office of Public Education and Education Facilities Management (OPEFM), which is running those numbers, did not testify.

Ten days later, Abigail Smith, of the deputy mayor's office, could say only: “School budgets for all schools are being developed, and we will have that information to share when the entire budget formulation process is completed.”

At press time, OPEFM spokesperson Tony Robinson said the office had not yet estimated costs for renovation projects, prepared timelines or determined the feasibility of completing necessary renovations by August.