Why is DCPS following recommendations that led to disaster in another city school system?
The consulting firm of Alvarez and Marsal (A&M) – the firm hired in 2007 by the Fenty administration for advice on DCPS – worked with the St. Louis Public Schools in 2003-04.

In 2003-04, A&M organized the closing of 16 schools, outsourcing of food and janitorial services, and firing of many employees – not unlike what is being proposed for DCPS. In that year, SLPS' accreditation score dropped 16 points.

In the subsequent four years, SLPS' performance score dropped so severely that the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) stripped St. Louis schools of their accreditation on Mar. 22, 2007.

The state took over the city's schools in June. The decision was appealed by the elected school board, but it was upheld in Cole County Circuit Court on Jan. 23, 2008. St. Louis is now holding public meetings to discuss another round of reconfiguring and consolidating its schools.

Why did Mayor Adrian Fenty hire this firm – on a no-bid basis – last summer? They were recommended, according to Deputy Mayor Victor Reinoso, “by a number of school districts across the country as well as School Board President Robert Bobb. The company's experience bringing operational and financial reform to troubled public school districts fit with the goals for turning around District of Columbia Public Schools." Although A&M was only hired for four-months, DCPS has since been following a path parallel to the one A&M recommended in St. Louis. 

Does A&M have the experience to support turning around DCPS?
A&M reports on the St. Louis work in “A Textbook Turnaround,” a document dated March 27, 2007, and available on the firm's website: “The Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP) score for the St. Louis public schools increased by nine points, moving it to within two points of full accreditation – something it had lacked for years.”

Missouri's DESE confirms, however, that the score increase – reported on Dec. 1, 2003 – occurred before A&M was hired. It is based on tests and other measures from the 2002-03 school year.

Accreditation scores had been rising in St. Louis for years, in fact, before A&M's arrival. It was during the school year in which A&M conducted reforms, 2003-04, that the SLPS accreditation score dropped 16 points -- to 48 points, compared with scores of 55 and 64 in the previous two school years.

The year after A&M departed (2004-05), SLPS' accreditation score dropped to 39. The scale was changed in subsequent years, and DESE reports that SLSP met 4 out of 14 standards for 2005-06 and 2 out of 14 in 2006-07. The pre-A&M score remained a high point, in terms of accreditation.

Were Business Practices Sound?
A&M materials, including the “A Textbook Turnaround,” state that after their work:

“The district could account for every textbook, having consolidated disheveled and underutilized warehouses into one modern facility and implemented a new inventory control system.”

It does appear that improvements in textbook operations took place during A&M's year in SLPS. However, a Missouri State Audit notes that the work was subcontracted on an informal-bid basis without controls:

“Supply warehouse services, including inventory receiving, delivery, and tracking services, were outsourced at an annual cost of approximately $400,000 in August 2003...However, without formally requesting proposals... We were unable to determine if the proposals were for comparable services because the district could not locate the documentation of the proposals received.”

Were School Closings Effective in the Short or Long Term?
The same audit notes that school closings appeared to be conducted based on consistent criteria. The report continues, however, with a comment that DCPS cannot afford to ignore:

After the closings, six of the 26 receiving schools “had occupancy levels below 70 percent, the preferred occupancy level as defined in the closing criteria. With predictions of declining enrollments, continuing, financial difficulties, the impact of charter school enrollment, and the possibility of an influx of students returning to the district due to the end of the desegregation agreement, additional and ongoing analysis by the School Board is necessary to ensure the efficient use of school facilities.”

Did A&M's Work Help St. Louis?
There are many confounding factors in St. Louis' story, including a federal desegregation case. Fingers have been pointed over the years – in and outside of Missouri – toward the St. Louis school board and state and federal agencies, as well as toward A&M. A special committee appointed by Missouri's DESE studied SLPS in 2006 and declared:

“In FY 2004, the School Board brought in a new management group that cut approximately $20 million out of the budgeted expenditures, a large and painful amount, but less than enough to bring the budget into balance. At that time the steady measurable progress toward meeting the Missouri standards for full accreditation was reversed and ground was lost over the next few years.”

Should DCPS follow an A&M-St. Louis path?
DC school advocate Iris Toyer sees disturbing parallels between SLPS and DCPS:

Both school systems tried “squeezing children into buildings,” Toyer says. “The [SLPS] closings mirror what is going here in DC... Their schools are underpopulated, but they have no clear plan  – there or here  – what to do about it.”

When we had the Master Facilities Plan, driven by the Master Education Plan, Toyer notes in comparison, “when schools were closed or consolidated, children would be going to better place. Now, we see students sent to worse physical conditions and schools not performing as well academically as the school from which they're coming.”

In both city's A&M-inspired plans, Toyer observes, “what happens to children seems to be the last thing on their list of consider.”

Moreover, “St. Louis is going through the same kind of disarray, even after following A&M recommendations.”

Ward 5 Councilmember Harry Thomas also notes reservations about the path DCPS has taken.

“I'm always looking for stabilized neighborhood schools,” says Thomas. And it is not clear that the consolidations will lead there. In addition, ultimate costs of the closings – such as possible busing expenses – have not been calculated.

Thomas also stresses that A&M's no-bid hiring offered “no opportunity to look at whether the past performance used best practices.” Without a procurement process, there is no due diligence.

“Ultimately, I know that, as a councilmember, I'll be held accountable,” Thomas says. “Because we're partners in giving this [the Mayor schools'] authority, we have to protect the integrity of what we're trying to do.”

“I always support competition to get the best for citizenry,” he adds, “and it doesn't make sense to be using people that made mistakes.”

Council Chair Vince Gray “has done a good job exercising oversight on education,” Thomas concludes. “But I think we can always revisit the law.”