A decade into mayoral control of the schools, questions about whether the DC Council should add a level of independence for the state education agency have become a major issue in the DC State Board of Education races.
Two new bills — introduced by Council members David Grosso and Mary Cheh — would change the structure of the education system and shift power away from the mayor for the first time since mayoral control of the DC Public Schools was established in 2007.
Both bills would bring changes to the Office of the State Superintendent for Education (OSSE), which serves as DC’s liaison to the U.S. Department of Education and oversees federal funding, enrollment, and education standards for DC public schools.
Grosso’s bill would establish OSSE as an independent agency outside of the mayor’s office and remove the mayor’s ability to fire the superintendent at will. The bill would also create six-year terms for the superintendent — rather than the current four-year term — so that it would not always align with mayoral elections.
Going a step further, Cheh’s bill would strip the mayor of power over the superintendent’s office altogether. Instead, the elected State Board of Education (SBOE) would appoint the state superintendent, increasing the power of the board in the process.
If passed by the council, these bills would have implications on the education system as a whole, and the SBOE specifically.
The DC Line spoke to the SBOE candidates up for election on Nov. 6 — those in wards 1, 3, 5 and 6 — to understand their positions on these bills and the current structure of the city’s education system.
Ward 1
In Ward 1, three challengers are all running for an open seat: Jason Andrean, Callie Kozlak and Emily Gasoi. Both Andrean and Kozlak have a similar vision and support Council member Grosso’s bill, while Gasoi supports the version introduced by Cheh. All three agree, however, that the SBOE should have the ability to introduce policy or regulations.
Kozlak supports Grosso’s bill because she believes it would provide OSSE more independence and authority to implement federal civil rights laws. She also says it would mimic structures already tested in other states.
Also supporting Grosso’s effort, Andrean argues that the bill would provide much-needed continuity to the education system. “Assuming that the mayor’s office turns over every four years, you’d have [the superintendent’s] position that’d be staggered, providing continuity in the education sector,” he said.
Establishing OSSE as an independent agency — as laid out in Grosso’s bill — would also increase transparency, according to Andrean.
Gasoi also wants increased transparency, but she disagrees with Andrean on how to achieve it. Instead, she favors Cheh’s approach over Grosso’s, arguing that distance from the mayor is critical for OSSE’s effectiveness.
“Many people express fear that [changing] any of the power dynamics in our system will automatically send us back to the way it used to be before mayoral control,” said Gasoi. “I appreciate those concerns, but we cannot allow ourselves to be paralyzed by fear.”
Kozlak is worried that Cheh’s bill would over-politicize the state board. The races are already contentious enough, and more power might hinder collaboration, she argues. However, she didn’t write it off entirely. “I honestly want to understand more about it,” she said. “I’d like to hear more from stakeholders.”
While not everyone supports giving the state board authority over OSSE, they do agree that the board should have more power. All three candidates would like the SBOE to have the ability to initiate policies or regulations, in some capacity, rather than waiting for the proposals to come from OSSE.
Ward 3
In Ward 3, Dora Currea faces off against incumbent Ruth Wattenberg, each holding opposing views of the system of mayoral control. While Wattenberg believes that priority should be placed on moving some power away from the mayor, Currea thinks that mayoral control over the various entities simplifies the system and that changes would remove focus from other critical areas of concern.
Currea understands that people are frustrated that the mayor has no viable challenger, ostensibly limiting voters’ mechanisms to influence the school system, but she believes changing the structure of OSSE is the wrong move. “My concern is that we are … going to start amending [the structure] because the council perhaps feels that that’s the only lever that they have,” she said, arguing that legislators should use their power in other ways.
Wattenberg, however, believes that moving away responsibilities from the mayor should be a priority. She advocates for an agency that is independent of the mayor and responsive to parents or voters. Council member Grosso’s bill, she argues, would not achieve this. The mayor would still appoint the superintendent who has control over OSSE and a six-year term for the superintendent would make the agency less responsive, Wattenberg said.
She believes that Cheh’s bill is an opportunity for discussion, but says it’s not perfect. “You’d have to build up some capacity in the board; you’d want to have some conversations about which parts you move,” said Wattenberg. “In general, I like the idea of moving parts of it to the board. That’s how it’s done in most states in the country.”
According to Currea, the debate over the bills uses political space and public dialogue that should be directed toward other education goals — notably shrinking or eliminating DC’s achievement gap. She argues that there will never be a perfect structure, and would rather not focus on amending it.
Ward 5
In Ward 5, three challengers are vying for an open seat: Adrian Jordan, William “Bill” Lewis and Zachary Parker. Lewis did not respond to requests for comment, while Jordan and Parker expressed differing views on the new bills. At a recent forum, Lewis’ stance on the bills was unclear, but he advocated for a more empowered board, with less input from politicians.
Jordan said he has been a longtime supporter of an independent OSSE, and supports Council member Grosso’s bill. He referenced media reports earlier this year that a staffer had discussed holding up an investigation into residency of students at Duke Ellington School of Arts to avoid potential political fallout in an election year.
“When reports and data aren’t being released for fear of how public reprisal will be during a campaign — whether it was intentional or not — I don’t think that should ever happen,” said Jordan, arguing that Grosso’s bill would help restore trust in OSSE.
Parker disagrees that the bill would address what he sees as the most pressing concern within the school system — equity. Changing which body has ultimate authority “does not address that we need a fundamental overhaul around how we do education in the city,” Parker said.
The two agree on one thing: that they do not support Cheh’s bill. Parker does not think that changing the authority would actually make any impactful change on the issues that he would like to prioritize. Jordan wants to avoid reverting back to an old system and implement a change he argues could adversely affect students, parents and teachers.
Jordan said he would like to see the state board empowered in other ways, such as initiating legislation and contributing to superintendent selection.
“If I’m elected I’m going to be listening to constituents that say, ‘We really need xyz.’ I would love to be able to bring that to the board, talk to other members, and initiate those policies,” said Jordan.
Parker understands the intent behind both bills, and believes they have merit. He is concerned about oversight, but doesn’t support a change in structure. “We have mechanisms for oversight largely by way of the council — which I think could be doing a lot more and doing its job,” he said.
Ward 6
In Ward 6, Jessica Sutter faces off against incumbent Joe Weedon — and they sit on opposite sides of the debate. While Sutter is satisfied with the centralization of power in the mayor’s office, albeit with some modifications, Weedon stands staunchly against it, advocating for a more empowered State Board of Education.
When examining the bills in front of the council, Sutter supports Grosso’s. She likes that the bill gives OSSE more independence and the ability to hire its own staff, while still keeping the mayor at the head. Currently, the mayor’s office has influence over other positions in the agency beyond the superintendent.
Weedon, however, believes that Grosso’s bill doesn’t go “far enough to ensure true independence and accountability to the board and the public,” he said. With the mayor at the head of the state education agency, Weedon is concerned that information and data gets “spun in a way that benefits the same individuals that oversee our schools.”
Cheh’s bill would concentrate more authority in the SBOE, but Weedon said that major changes to the board’s operations and budget would be necessary for it to have the capacity to oversee OSSE entirely. “I think we need to have a conversation and understand the impact of both bills, and other options that are potentially out there,” he said, “then figure out the best way to move forward for DC.”
Sutter opposes Cheh’s bill for a number of reasons. While Cheh’s rhetoric has suggested the bill would take politics out of the process, Sutter thinks it would do just the opposite. After campaigning, Sutter found that the majority of people who she spoke to in Ward 6 don’t know what the SBOE does or who their representative is.
“That makes me worry that giving more power to the state board isn’t actually more democratic because you’re giving more power to a board that is more obscure,” she said.
Although not opposed to a more empowered SBOE in the future, Sutter feels that it’s more democratic to keep the city’s top elected official in control for now. However, Sutter believes that the mayor needs to be more clear in laying out educational goals as well as an overall vision for the city’s schools.
Comments are closed.