Notes from the Field
Submitted by Frank Murphy on October 11, 2011
In the aftermath of the messy departure of Arlene Ackerman, the public’s attention has turned to considering the effectiveness of the School Reform Commission as a governance body. Interest in examining alternative models to the current SRC has been expressed by elected officials, the local media, educational activists and the general public. This subject will be the topic of a forum organized by Ed Voters Pa, Public Citizen for Children and Youth, and the Philadelphia Student Union that is scheduled to take place tonight at the United Way Building.
How the Philadelphia School District is governed is certainly a timely and important matter to be considered especially in light of how important district business has been mismanaged in recent months.
Yet among the many voices calling for this examination, there is no clear consensus regarding how the district should be managed. The individuals and groups that are calling for a change have put a variety of options forward. Some people are advocating for mayoral control of the district. Others want an elected school board. There are those who favor keeping the current SRC structure. The creation of neighborhood advisory boards has been another proposal. Plans that combine different elements of each of these ideas have also been offered.
Evaluating and determining the merits of these ideas will take some time. In the end, if the governance structure of the school district is changed it will have been as the result of a long and protracted process. In the meantime the business of the district will continue to need regular attention. This is a fact that seemingly receives little attention amidst the loud and sometimes-contentious discussions that are taking place regarding the district’s leadership and governance needs.
Let’s not forget that the devastating budget crisis ravaging our district has yet to be resolved. There is still a budget gap for the 2011-2012 fiscal year. Planning for the 2012-2013-budget year should already be underway. The School Reform Commissioners currently in place will be the individuals who will deal with these important monetary and management matters. Therefore our attention should be as focused on how the SRC is governing the district now, as it is on debating what is the best approach for district governance in the future.
With the addition of three new members to the ranks of the School Reform Commission and the appointment of a new SRC chairpersonthere is an opportunity here to restore the public’s confidence in this tarnished Commission. The SRC commissioners can do so by instituting a more transparent and open process for conducting the business of the district.
Going forward there are several considerations that need their immediate attention.
Here is a short list of actions I would like to see them take in the months ahead.
1.Direct district administrators to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the effect of the recent budget cuts on the instructional program of district schools. The objective of this activity would be to identify and describe the negative impact on individual schools that has occurred as a result of lost funds. The information that is gathered during this review can be used by the SRC to guide the budget development process for the next school year. A list of funding priorities based on the needs identified in this report should be created and then ranked in order of importance. Doing so we help the commissioners to better focus their efforts as they seek additional aid from the state and city governments for the next school year.
2.Thoroughly review the master facilities plan that was developed during the Ackerman Administration. In doing so they should determine whether or not preferential treatment is being shown to any private interests (real estate developers, charter school managers, business firms, etc.) Care should be taken to avoid any hint of the possibility of conflict of interest on their part. If any element of this plan does not serve the best interest of the public good, it should be scrapped. Additionally the SRC should ensure that the public will be engaged in extensive and meaningful dialogue concerning the merits of any recommendations to close schools.
3.Approve expenditure requests only after deciding that they are consistent with the district’s mission, are cost effective, and that funding is available to support the request. If a proposed expenditure will incur a recurring yearly cost (i.e. adding teachers to reduce class size, hiring more school counselors, increasing social service supports, etc.) they should determine whether it will be sustainable in future budgets.
4.Initiate a comprehensive evaluation of the academic achievement and cost effectiveness of the 13 public schools that were converted to charter schools as part of Ackerman’s Renaissance School program.
5.Conduct a similar evaluation in order to determine the academic achievement and cost effectiveness of the Promise Academies.
6.Develop a profile of the type of leader that the School Reform Commission will seek to head our school district. Hopefully the SRC will get it right this time.
7.Hire a new school Superintendent as quickly and prudently as possible.
These are a few of the pressing matters that will require the School Reform Commission’s attention in the year ahead. Let’s be sure to keep our eyes on how well this group deals with these tasks as we continue to debate how to best manage the interests of our school district.