Notes from the Field
Submitted by Frank Murphy, April 21, 2011
For the years that I was the principal of a low resource school in Philadelphia, there was never enough money to do everything that needed to be done. Making ends meet was difficult. Providing all of the elements that a high quality instructional program should posses was a monumental challenge. In this financial climate, an important skill that I mastered over time was the ability to get the most for my school’s dollars.
Finding more money and resources was a constant endeavor. Lobbying district leaders, applying for grants, creating partnerships with arts and sports organizations, seeking gifts from individuals and organizations were active pursuits of mine. Every contribution was welcomed regardless of its size. A five hundred dollar donation might pay for a music assembly. A fifty dollar gift would be spent buying books for classroom libraries. Every extra dollar received helped to build a better school environment.
Many times I was faced with difficult decisions. Should I purchase new technology for the classrooms or instead should I purchase an additional teaching position to reduce class size in first grade? Always I was faced with the dilemma of making difficult choices in trying to obtain the best result for all of my children.
Doing the most good for the largest number of my students has always been my objective. It seems to be the fairest way to manage an elementary school that services a large population of students who are disadvantaged by the negative effects of poverty. I assumed that I shared this point of view with the other leaders of my district.
This perspective however is not reflected in the draft policy for how to handle the sale of school district real estate being developed by the Ackerman administration.
District officials have been working for some time on developing new rules to govern the sale of surplus school district property. A major proposed change to the current policy will result in the offering of a 25% discount to potential charter school purchasers. This reflects a significant amount of money that will be forfeited by the school district’s students.
When asked by a PlanPhilly reporter why the District would offer discounts on property at a time when it is facing an enormous deficit, Dr. Ackerman replied that the profits from property sales – roughly budgeted for $12.5 million next year – “are not near enough to close the $639 million gap.
By taking this point of view Ackerman is in effect, giving away three to five million dollars of potential revenue to charter schools that purchase district property. This is money that could be used to support the instructional programs for the district’s already stretched public schools.
Dr. Ackerman may feel the loss of a few million dollars in comparison to a 639 million dollar budget deficit isn’t much. But if this lost profit were to be applied to actual district programs in jeopardy of being cut next year, this money could make a big difference. In a recent post, I identified the cost of various programs and personnel that might need to be sacrificed in order to close the budget deficit (programs like music, athletics, computers, counseling, instructional support, etc.).
Ackerman is often fond of dismissing those who disagree with her proposals by suggesting that adult issues shouldn’t get in our way. We should only “be concerned for what is best for the children.” Indeed spending every available dollar on programs, materials, equipment and personnel that will best serve the needs of the school children of Philadelphia should be Dr. Ackerman’s main priority.
Providing discounts to the fair market value of district real estate merely addresses the interest of the adults involved. It does nothing for our children.
In the past, the district has sought the maximum market rate for the public property that it manages. It should continue to so in order to offer the best possible benefit to its entire student body.