City School Stories

Notes From the Field

Submitted by Frank Murphy on August 2, 2011

With the start of a new school year rapidly approaching, the news coming out of the School District of Philadelphia continues to be centered on reactions to rumors about Arlene Ackerman’s imminent departure.  Will she go? Will she stay?

Pennsylvania State Representative Michael McGeehan is vocally and publically opposed to Ackerman remaining as the leader of the Philadelphia School District.  Pundits such as Phil Goldsmith, Karen Heller, John Baer, and Brian Hickey have all expressed the opinion that Arlene Ackerman has lost the confidence and good will of the Philadelphia community. On the other hand, a small group of Ackerman supporters have been publically lobbying for her to continue on as the chief school administrator until the end of her contract in 2014.

Although the proposal to accelerate Ackerman’s departure is winning growing support, there is far less of a willingness to see her benefit from a lucrative financial settlement in order to so.  (According to this report in the Philadelphia Inquirer, it may cost $1.5 million to buy out the remaining years on Ackerman’s contract.)  There are two prominent objections to a “buy out” proposition. There is the obvious concern that a district already dealing with a $629 million deficit cannot afford such a large severance payment.  Then of course is the understandable reluctance to generously reward a leader who has failed to avert a fiscal catastrophe of this magnitude in the first place.

Whether we can afford this settlement and/or even offer it in the first place are not the questions we should be considering at this point.  Instead we should be wondering whether we can afford to continue on with Arlene Ackerman.

The last three years have given us a clear picture of how Ackerman freely spends other people’s money without any real concern for fiscal reality. Look at how the stimulus money was used.  Ackerman didn’t target these funds to make improvements to the district by identifying desired one-time expenditure projects that were currently unable to be locally financed.  Instead she used stimulus funds to expand district staffing and programs, thereby increasing yearly operational costs.  This was an unsustainable investment.

For the last three years, Ackerman has additionally freely spent public tax dollars on increasing her administrative staff and their salaries.  She has discarded tens of millions of dollars worth of newly purchased textbooks and instructional programs in Empowerment Schools and replaced them with costly remedial math and reading materials.  The superintendent has also not been shy about directing large sums of money to fund pet projects such as her Promise Academies.

Ackerman has clearly demonstrated her ineptness at managing the public’s checkbook.  Do we seriously think that she will change her freewheeling ways any time soon?   Can we really afford much more of Ackerman economics?

Of equal concern to Ackerman’s questionable fiscal policies is the damage to the credibility and morale of our school district resulting from her actions as Superintendent of Schools.  During most of her tenure in Philadelphia, Ackerman has been ensnarled in controversy.  The list of situations that she has boggled is extensive.  Some of the more notable examples of her management mishaps have been: the poor response she showed in dealing with racial conflicts at South Philadelphia High School, the heavy-handed management style she demonstrated in the West Philadelphia High School turn-around debacle and her over reaction and lack of concern for due process rights in the Hope Moffat disciplinary fiasco.

Questionable practices concerning the awarding of contracts and the selection of Renaissance charter managers have produced a considerable volume of negative attention. A $629 budget deficit has resulted in massive layoffs, program cuts and higher city taxes.  Topping off the list, most recently a state investigation has been launched in order to determine if cheating on the PSSA test has occurred in a number of schools.

On more than a few occasions at city wide principal meetings, I have listened to Ackerman proclaim her commitment to serving the children of our city.  She regularly stated that she doesn’t financially need to be Superintendent of Schools. According to her, she would enjoy being retired and spending more time with her grandchildren.  She claims that she has taken on her position of leadership in Philadelphia in order to do the right thing for other people’s children.  This is a noble sentiment.   Unfortunately, the ability of Dr. Ackerman to pursue this objective has been fatally compromised by the seemingly endless controversy that she has created.

The School District’s reputation has been seriously tarnished as a result of her actions as its top leader. Its financial stability is seriously impaired.  The moral of district employees, parents and students is at an all time low.  Now is the time for Ackerman to step aside.  In this way, the hurts suffered by so many during her administration can begin to heal and our severely discredited organization can begin to be repaired.

Dr. Ackerman needs to come to grips with the fact that she is causing more harm than good by staying on as the superintendent. If she is truly committed to doing what is right for our children, then she will peacefully and graciously depart.

In doing so, perhaps she will negotiate a reasonable settlement to her contract.   For the sake of the children she might consider accepting only the compensation that is due to her up to her final day of employment with the Philadelphia School District.  As for the remaining compensation to which she might be entitled, Ackerman could insist that it be used to place three or four additional teachers in a high needs school.

Pay her what she is due and bring an end this toxic tornado that is ripping apart our school district.   By taking this course of action, we can take comfort in the savings we will be able to achieve after she is gone. For example, a cut to the budget of the communication office, greatly expanded by Ackerman, could finance the cost of this settlement. The many high-salaried members of this department who have spent much of their time engaging in damage control for the superintendent will no longer be needed.

It is time for us to get on with healing our ailing school district.  And this time, let’s just make sure that the irresponsible and extravagant measures the School Reform Commission included in Ackerman’s contract, are not offered to our next district leader.