Notes from the Field
Submitted by Frank Murphy on August 30, 2011
In the waning days of Arlene Ackerman’s employment with the Philadelphia School District, State Senator Anthony Williams spoke out on her behalf at a School Reform Commission meeting. His praise was lavish for Ackerman’s work as Superintendent of Schools and his scorn for her critics was scathing. It is curious that Williams, one of the champions of the school choice movement, would be such a good friend of the appointed guardian of our local school system. Williams is also one of the chief proponents of legislation that would authorize the use of vouchers in Pennsylvania.
Not long after Williams’ appearance at the SRC meeting, Ackerman was given a $905,000 buyout offer. A significant portion of this settlement was funded using money that was contributed by anonymous local business leaders. The decision by the SRC to use $405,000 in private donations as part of the Ackerman’s severance package, has since raised serious ethical concerns. Who are these secret donors and why were they willing to spin their own personal wealth into Arlene Ackerman’s golden parachute? Do they expect to see something in return for their financial largeness?
Similar concerns were raised not that long ago when a trio of wealthy Bala Cynwyd businessmen spent large sums of money on the gubernatorial campaign of Anthony Williams. They almost single-handedly funded Williams’ campaign for governor. These individuals are strong proponents for the creation of charter schools and the use of school vouchers. Their generous contributions, which aided Williams in pursuing his political ambitions, inevitably raised ethical questions of their own. Should Williams have been elected governor as a result of their assistance, how beholden would he be to their public school privatization agenda?
It would be reassuring to know that these same individuals didn’t have a hand in providing the additional funding for Ackerman’s severance pay. Then we would be more confident that these wealthy and powerful men didn’t influence her recent decision to publicly declare her support for the use of school vouchers.
She did so during an interview broadcast on local radio station 900 AM WURD, in which she advised district parents to show their disdain for Philadelphia’s public schools by “voting with their feet”. In this broadcast, Ackerman counseled parents of children in those schools she has deemed “low performing”, to enroll their children in charter schools until they could possibly take advantage of school vouchers and leave the city’s public schools.
At first glance, this appears to be a surprising point of view coming from a person who has been the leader of the local public school system for the past three years.
But when one takes into consideration Ackerman’s many alliances and affiliations with corporate school reformers, her behavior makes more sense. Ackerman’s support for charter schools and vouchers is completely in line with the views of Eli Broad, the founder of the Broad Foundation. His organization has been quite influential in disrupting the governance of urban public school districts across the country. Eli Broad, himself a major advocate for the creation of charter schools and the use of school vouchers, has been a strong behind-the-scenes player in the Ackerman administration. I have previously discussed the influence of the “Broad View” on the governance of the School District of Philadelphia in this post.
So, one now has to wonder why no-longer-superintendent Ackerman, through her recent media offensive, continues to press for the implementation of school turn-around strategies that will result in the dismantling of our public school system. Is the money she received in her settlement package from “unknown sources” really an incentive to do so? Who can know for sure?
It is impossible to discern the reasons behind Ackerman’s post-superintendent district bashing without an honest explanation from her. Likewise the motivations of the secret wealthy and powerful individuals who contributed to her buy out are just as indiscernible. In the absence of facts, people’s imaginations will run wild as they try to make sense of this puzzling situation, particularly if these anonymous donors are involved in making important policy decisions.
Clarity and transparency are essential to sorting out this state of affairs. When funds from private citizens are used to help finance government initiatives, the public is entitled to know who these individuals are. To do otherwise is an anathema to the tenets of our democracy.