The crisis at the Philadelphia school district has become the first order of business for Democratic candidate Michael Nutter, despite the fact that he isn't mayor yet and despite the fact that the schools are run by the state.
This is an interesting first test, and it already tells us a lot about Nutter -- as well as about his predecessor and about the men who ran to be in his place earlier this spring.
Nutter showed up with current Mayor John Street at yesterday's fractious School Reform Commission meeting. Street and Nutter both testified, asking for a delay in the vote on next year's budget. That budget needs a ridiculous amount of additional state and city money (an amount which will not be forthcoming) AND almost $100 million in cuts (an amount certain to grow when the state money doesn't arrive) to be balanced.
The SRC agreed to delay the vote a couple of days. They're ready to move on, and as several witnesses pointed out -- including Street himself, in a stinging critique -- they are tolerating an avalanche of public comment with gritted teeth and not much response.
OK. I realize that, unless you have a kid in the district or are a education advocate of some kind, this stuff may not hold your interest.
But below the jump is my screed on what is important about yesterday -- and this crisis generally.
1) Michael Nutter is making it clear that, if he is elected, he's going to try to address the city schools' problems, and is interested in having the city run the district. He did say that during the campaign, and he's apparently ready to make good on it.
2) Despite that impressive force of will, the question of state vs. city control is not really the most critical issue here. The problem right now is that the school district needs more money. I know, there are a lot of people -- lawmakers, suburbanities -- who hate to hear that. Unfortunately, it's true. Is there waste in the Philadelphia school district? Sure. It is as well run as it should be? No, and neither is any suburban district you care to point to. Is eliminating waste and improving efficiency -- even if that were possible -- enough to truly fund a decent education for city kids? No, and anyone who says so hasn't been in a Philly school in a while. Go take a look at a neighborhood elementary school in, say, Southwest Philly and come tell me that "waste and inefficiency" are the real problems, as opposed to neighborhood poverty and a lack of investment in the schools that stretches back decades.
3) The real problems are that teaching our city's kids costs a lot of money -- perhaps more money than teaching suburban kids -- and we don't have the tax base to do it. The state is working on a study right now to determine what it actually costs to provide a decent education to students in each of the state's school districts. That will be a very interesting report. I think we will see that we aren't paying what it costs, per pupil, to teach Philadelphia students well. And if we are, I will happily eat my words.
4) However, I am not suggesting that it is a good idea to send city taxes skyrocketing to address the district's money problems. That's a lousy idea. Again, we may not have the tax base to do it, and we could certainly discourage the development of a healthier tax base if we did it. We will need to be more creative to find a solution here.
When I lived in South Carolina, the state faced a similar problem, except in that case it was rural schools who lagged far behind suburban schools in performance (at least, as measured by test scores) and yet didn't have the tax base to raise more money for schools. The state imposed a penny of additional sales tax -- a tax that was statewide, and paid in part by tourists who flocked to the beaches -- and dedicated the proceeds to eliminating funding differences among districts. It was a statewide approach to problems that existed only in some parts of the state (and, by the way, it was a limited approach -- the tax did not last forever). It was a more creative approach. Similarly, when I lived in Virginia, the state used the proceeds of a lottery for additional money for colleges and universities, and saw a great era of university-building that continues to draw smart young people to the state.
This schools crisis is already becoming a defining issue for Nutter, as it was when Street allowed the state takeover in the cause of finding additional money for the schools (which worked, in the short-run). But I hope that for Nutter, as it was for Street, the question of who controls the district is secondary to how well we fund it. After all, there is a variety of opinions on who runs schools best -- Dwight Evans took a drubbing yesterday for his opinion that state control works well, despite evidence that the SRC has shown improvement in test scores during its era.
No, what really matters is the money. Brett Mandel, of Philadelphia Forward, reminds us regularly that government budget-making is government priority-setting. What we choose to put our money on is what we see as important. And that's the issue to watch as this unfolds: Not who runs the schools, and what the next mayor says about that, but how we'll pay for them, and how well he can improve that.
Comments (11)
I don't think there is any question that teaching kids in Philadelphia costs more money then in the suburbs. With the higher rate of poverty come higher rates of single-parent households, safety issues, disciplinary issues, etc... And the schools are left to deal with it. How can there even be any debate that urban schools deal with a heavier burden?
Posted by Roman | May 30, 2007 10:39 AM
It's just an unpleasant truth that many -- including Harrisburg lawmakers -- don't want to deal with. And if we do acknowledge it, what then? Who should pay the difference? Do we say, "These are city kids and a city problem?" Or do we say, "These kids are the ones who will either grow our region or destroy it from the inside. People around Philadelphia -- in the burbs, perhaps statewide -- have a vested interest, and a moral interest, in getting them a good education"?
Posted by Wendy | May 30, 2007 12:44 PM
Why is it children in Philly's public school system are never asked their opinions on which so called grown-ups who claim leadership can't figure out or want to their well-being. Mmmmm.
Posted by Jasper Zeigler Jr | May 30, 2007 12:56 PM
Wendy, thanks for the correction on which pre-May 15 debate the D.N. co-sponsored. By the way, did any other Mayoral candidate besides Nutter take out full page ads in the Daily News week(s) before the D.N. and Inky endorsements and the last of the televised debates and May 15? I'm not saying the fix was in but it just seems odd that Brady, Dwight, Fattah and particularly Knox would not take out ads in the Inky and the Daily News also. Perhaps you and Dan can explain this? By the way, this white man (of hispanic descent) also has a subscription to the Tribune. I like to be well rounded. To the best of my knowledge, Nutter did not spend one cent with that paper??? It appears rather fortunate that the only city dailies that his campaign invested money in... selected him. What a great stroke of luck! Not even the NAACP backed Sunday Sun. Hell, even I read Mondeshire's rag, occasionally. Wendy, Dan I stick by my statement, your work associate Signe's cartoon was RACIST! Commentary is welcome!!!!!
Posted by Son of Anonymous | May 30, 2007 1:47 PM
Anonymous a lot of folks have some of your thoughts like for instance why didn't the other candidates besides Nutter not have ads running in the local papers and does Jerry Mondesire the " Prince Of Gloom " really think or suspect he'll be mayor of Philadelphia one year.
One more question ....
Did Mondesire leave the " Inquirer " to form his summariting comments called the Sunday Sun.
Posted by Jasper Zeigler Jr | May 30, 2007 2:41 PM
Jasper, most of your above summations would seem to be on track, but Jerry is never going to be mayor of this city as is the case with Evans... sometimes that single (Philadelphia) lonely girl just doesn't want you. Glad to see "Stop and Frisk" Baltimore style was shot down in council last week... sage move by our brothers to the south.
Posted by Son of Anonymous | May 30, 2007 6:25 PM
A Plesant REMINDER!!!!
Jim Kenney SMOKED John Dougherty!
Jim Kenney SMOKED John Dougherty!
Jim Kenney SMOKED John Dougherty!
Jim Kenney SMOKED John Dougherty!
Jim Kenney SMOKED John Dougherty!
Jim Kenney SMOKED John Dougherty!
Posted by Facts not Controlled by Local 98 | May 30, 2007 11:04 PM
Sorry, SoA -- was off line there a bit. Yes, Nutter put full page ads in the DN and Inky. I did not see any other ads from mayoral candidates but I did see them from council and other candidates (Bill Green comes to mind). Also, Nutter had the pop-up ad on philly.com. "Hi. I'm Mike Nutter." is burned into my brain a bit.
I know that it looks like the "fix is in." All I can tell you is, I don't care one bit who buys ads in my paper, as long as we sell enough to keep the ship afloat and improving. Michael Nutter could buy whatever he wants -- it won't change news coverage and it wouldn't make a difference in the editorial endorsement. That's not just rhetoric, either.
I wasn't in on the endorsement, but those who were said it was a passionate debate and then a straight vote. There were those who strongly supported other candidates, but the vote went Nutter's way.
Posted by Wendy | May 30, 2007 11:20 PM
Anonymous ,
I most certainly agree if that single ( Philadelphia ) lonely girl just doesn't want you , physical activity won't be happening. I can't see Jerry or Dwight ever in the City-Hall Chair either. That move by our brothers to the south to shoot down the " Stop and Frisk " motion was a good community boost.
I didn't care for the stop and frisk manipulation when I was a teenager and younger person and don't care for the notion now.
Posted by Jasper Zeigler Jr | May 31, 2007 9:14 AM
Good for the growing coalition of parents and citizens who are accusing the - School Reform Commission of violating the state's open - meetings law - The Sunshine Act by deliberating in private over the districts 2007-08 budget up for a vote.
Appears the Sunshine Act states : Official action and deliberations by a quorum of the members of an agency shall take place at a meeting open to the public. The law says some issues can be discussed in private , including litigation , personnel and real-estate deals.
Im' getting the vibe all the secret resolutions to the budget is really about making money on bonds without the childrens interest at heart and sneaky unrecognized practices as usual.
Posted by Jasper Zeigler Jr | May 31, 2007 12:51 PM
Parents and citizens of Philadelphia did their best in pairing rules in voicing values and fitting vision.
The Philadelphia School Reform Commission has unanimously approved a $ 2.18 billion spending plan in spite of other thoughts. Sadly they weren't going to listen to any other reasoning but their sorted own.
Posted by Jasper Zeigler Jr | May 31, 2007 1:59 PM