Notes from the Field
Submitted by Frank Murphy, June 2, 2011
In a time when the School District of Philadelphia faces an enormous budget gap, it seems that Arlene Ackerman is still undeterred from pursuing unnecessary expenditures. The $2.75 billion budget approved by the School Reform Commission yesterday still includes funding for a summer school program. This is one of several budgeted activities (along with Promise Academies, Benchmark testing and contracted services) that have been challenged by parents, educators, advocates and some local elected officials.
None of these individuals are theoretically questioning the appropriateness of conducting a summer school program, per say. The issue in this case is one of priorities. When tough decisions must be made in deciding what we can and cannot afford in fiscally hard times, an eighteen day summer program serving a small percentage of the district’s students isn’t an item at the top of many people’s “to keep” list. Certainly, using limited precious dollars for summer school certainly pales in comparison to offering full day kindergarten classes all year long. But full day kindergarten unfortunately is one of the programs being cut, while summer school is left intact in the budget that the School Reform Commission has voted to approve.
In defense of her decision, as noted in this Notebook post, Ackerman implied at the SRC budget adoption that research on the effectiveness of summer school programs show benefits equivalent to that of kindergarten and early childhood education programs. This is quite a claim. If we are to believe Ackerman’s rationale for this decision, then we must acknowledge her as a brilliant educator for developing a miraculous remedy for improving student achievement.
Ackerman’s school budget allocates $23million for her summer school program, which is nearly equivalent to the sum of money that would be required to restore full day kindergarten classes for every eligible child in the city of Philadelphia. Now she expects us to believe that a proven educational service like kindergarten is less than essential. According to Ackerman’s rational, we can better enhance student achievement through a summer school program and do so in just eighteen days. The education community throughout the country would certainly be very interested in seeing the research Ackerman notes in support of her decision to retain one of her favored projects over funding early childhood education programs.
Ackerman also claims that the Title One funds she intends to use to pay for the summer program cannot be used to support a kindergarten program. However if the district offers half-day kindergarten classes as part of its basic instructional program, could it not supplement and extend these services to a full day program through the use of Title One funds? Even if this isn’t possible, we still must question whether a summer school program is the best use of these supplemental federal dollars.
Title One funds are intended for use on activities that will enhance and support the basic services provided by a school district. In order to get the best value from these entitlement dollars, school officials should target their use to programs that will provide the greatest benefit to needy students. Utilizing this money for example, to reduce teacher-student ratios in as many classrooms as possible during the regular school year would provide a far greater benefit to our children in comparison to an eighteen day summer program that will serve less than 25% of the district’s students.
Of course it isn’t really necessary to redirect Title One funds in order to provide the revenue necessary to restore full day kindergarten classes. There are other places within the District’s local budget that could be tapped. For example, the additional funds Ackerman proposes to spend on the experimental and unproven Promises Academies could be used for this purpose. Apparently this is an option that the superintendent refuses to consider. Instead she is attempting to silence those who disagree with her priorities with suspect arguments about the limited effectiveness of early childhood education programs or distracting conversations regarding the use of Title One Funds.
In reality, Dr Ackerman is holding hostage proven and valuable educational programs in order to leverage additional funds from either the city or state or both. This strategy is one that very likely will further erode what little credibility Ackerman still possesses as the educational leader of our school district.
During his testimony at the SRC meeting on May 31, 2011, City Council Representative Bill Green distinctly articulated some recommendations that the superintendent would be wise to heed.
We can only hope that she will listen to the voice of reason.