- This is it: Health Care For America Right NOW!
- Getting Dirty: Dirt! The Movie Comes to Philadelphia
- Soda Exposes the Festering Toothache of our Politics
- SRC outrage: Cartoons but not violence?
- Lewis Thomas III for State Representative Website Launch
- National Coming Out Day for Undocumented Youth
- Gambling's real winners and losers
- VoicesWeb Interview with Joe Hoeffel, Democrat for Governor
- Health care activists are planning a rally near Arcadia
- From Warren Bloom, Candidate for the PA House of Representatives 195th District, 2010.
School Chair Out? Politics All In for Philly Schools
Submitted by HelenGym on Wed, 03/25/2009 - 5:15am.
In a shocking turn of events, both the Inquirer and the Daily News are reporting that School Reform Commission Chair Sandra Dungee Glenn may be off the SRC. Media reports say that she may be replaced by attorney Robert Archie.
A few weeks back, on the Public School Notebook’s blog, I wrote about the baffling secrecy and lack of transparency around choosing the members of the School Reform Commission, the city/state oversight body for the Philadelphia public schools.
In fact, a School Reform Commission appointment is probably one of the least transparent processes in the School District of Philadelphia. Decided upon in backdoor rooms, at the sole discretion of either the Governor or the Mayor, lacking any written set of responsibilities and expectations, and largely absent public standards for avoiding ethical and financial conflicts of interest, the Commission appointments have long baffled most parents and education observers.
Unfortunately, if true, the departure of Sandra Dungee Glenn won't do much to alleviate those concerns. Here are a couple of reasons why:
- Number one is the lack of any transparent process or set of guidelines in the selection/ouster of SRC commissioners: Dungee Glenn has served on the SRC for seven years and was on the Board of Education prior to the state takeover. She has plenty of admirers (and probably some detractors as well), but after all that time of service, where’s the public input on whether we think she’s done a good job? Is she being replaced because she did a bad job or because the Governor or Mayor said, “I want my person in there”? Her potential ouster shows how flawed a process is when a person has served for a decade but there’s no public vetting of whether she should stay or go.
- There's the loss of institutional memory at a critical time in the School District’s future: This is a critical moment for the schools, with a number of major imminent decisions including school closings, the renewal of EMO contracts and disciplinary school contracts, a controversial plan to deal with failing schools, and the launching of School CEO Arlene Ackerman’s Strategic Plan "Imagine 2014." Note that School Chief Arlene Ackerman, her new chief of staff and many of her top executive staff hail from outside Philadelphia. Dungee Glenn’s departure and the rumored departure of Martin Bednarek also means that the senior person on the SRC could be Denise Armbrister, who was appointed in 2007 and has yet to make a mark there.
- And institutional memory is important because of all that stimulus cash: This year the School District has an unprecedented amount of money – on the order of $325+ million – thanks to federal stimulus dollars. Don’t we want that money spent based on the wisdom and experience of what’s worked before and what might be needed now? How are parents, staff, students and community members supposed to feel confident with a new crew coming in trying to make those decisions when we’re not even sure why and under what guidelines new SRC commissioners have been chosen to oversee that decision-making?
- Finally, Dungee Glenn’s departure potentially poses challenges for incoming leadership, particularly CEO Arlene Ackerman: The lack of a transparent process means that Mr. Archie has his work cut out for him on the public trust front - and that's something political leaders could have avoided. It's hard to imagine that parents and school members who face school closings, charter upheavals and the like in the coming months might not view the new SRC with considerably wariness. Although the rumored retention of Dr. Heidi Ramirez is encouraging, a fresh SRC doesn't guarantee fresh optimism about the SRC shedding the vestiges of its politically charged past.
In particular, Dungee Glenn was a major booster for Dr. Ackerman, and more important, she was a graceful foil to the Schools Chief’s occasional rougher edges. Dungee Glenn had the political skills to navigate SRC meetings without seeming distant or condescending, she smoothed things over when disagreements came up and worked to keep the Commission together. Although I was disappointed that the Chair didn’t work to engage the SRC more with the public beyond the SRC meetings, I always felt that Dungee Glenn was strongly aware of and responsive to the notion of the public responsibility of her position. As Dr. Ackerman takes on some of her more controversial initiatives, she will need a partner with the political grace and influence that Dungee Glenn has imparted, and the public also needs someone with the sense of public service and responsibility Dungee Glenn has infused into her role as well as the influence she has with Dr. Ackerman.
If media reports turn out to be true, look for more news and analysis at the Public School Notebook’s website.
Inky just confirmed Archie
Archie seems OK but a little out of left field. I find the whole business rather circumspect.
Obviously Ackerman seems to have some larger plans but it all seems rather unclear.
Perhaps not the type of thing to answered on a public forum but I wonder to what degree is the move against Dungee Glenn a reflection of her close ties to Fattah's inner circle? Generally despite whatever - um - lets say factional affiliations my general impression was that Dungee Glenn was highly respected for her passion for the job and competency by almost all parties. It seems odd.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Bob Archie is a standup guy.
Bob Archie is a standup guy. But it is very odd that he would want to be on the SRC. Not that he is not qualified, because he is, but he is the kind of pick that you would make if you were concerned about someone criticizing the pick. Smart guy, impeccable reputation, but not a school's guy. He is also not someone who is in any political camp.
Plus, there is no way but to interpret getting rid of Sandra as not a slap against Chaka. Not possible. No way. (Like Nutter and Rendell had to know that Chaka would take it that way.) Chaka is passionate about education. She is his education person. She has been there forever. So it's someone in his inner circle, doing a great job, and on an issue he cares a lot about.
And what is really odd is that Sandra was a passionate effective advocate for schools. It's not like she wasn't qualified, so why remove her for someone who would have only taken the job as a favor or caretaker? Odd. Smelly odd.
There's a story there...
And the major point is that we don't know
We don't know why Dungee Glenn was asked to leave (if true) or what makes Robert Archie qualified for the position, or what vetting process was used or what conditions were made.
When fools rule
I suspect Archie is as qualified to head the SRC as I am to head the ABA. Archie needs to complete a doctorate course in education before he can vote on Ackerman's 2014 plan. I'm certain he is a quick study, so I'll be grateful for that.
Kudos to Dungee Glenn. I believe she worked hard and truly had the best interest of the children at heart.
The jury remains out on many others.
Depends what you think the SRC is supposed to do
Robert Archie knows money, he has extensive political relationships, as a member of two boards at Universal he's an EMO and charter school operator, and based on his work at Duane Morris (link above) it appears he has a lot of clients in the development field.
Incredible post, Helen
Thanks for doing all this work. The only problem is finding the time to read through all the links to understand the context!
A Vested Interest
It's a hard argument to make that Archie is no one's political camp since he donated something like $7k to Rendell's campaign.
On top of that he's now chairmen of the board for a city/state agency that hands out multimillion dollar contracts to boards that he sits on. How is this kosher? Where is the outrage?
I don't mean to say he is
I don't mean to say he is not political. He works at a law firm that is and as a partner it is not hard to get them to pony up. Plus, $7K to Rendell is not a lot of money.
But he is not like Marty Weinberg, or other lawyers that are in a political camp. Bob has a sterling reputation. Started his own firm w/ co partner Nolan Atkinson -- also a well respected mind -- and has been at Duane Morris for a while. He is a mentor to a lot of the younger African American lawyers in town. Widely well respected, not a political hack.
He is a guy above reproach to many. Which is why it is odd he would be interested in this move. Just odd.
I've heard similar comments
about Mr. Archie - and that is encouraging. He deserves a better process and the public trust. But the problem is that the way the whole process is conducted begs a lot of cynicism and mistrust from parents and other folks on the ground, many of whom I have spoken to have registered fear, weariness, and frustration.
This is political payback
This is political payback for the primary. I forgot about the whole calling Nutter "white". If I had remembered that, I would have called it initially for what it is, not about helping kids, but Nutter telling Chaka that he remembered the slap and to the winner go the spoils.
Unfortunately, as much as I personally admire Bob Archie, his appointment is as I initially suspected purely political. They just found a guy that few people would say bad things about even though their motives were purely political. That's why no open process. Because while Bob is a great lawyer and mentor, Philadelphia Public Schools are not his passion in the same same nuts and bolts way that it was for Sandra Dungee Glenn. (Government financing is and he will bring great talent and an impeccable temperament to the position.)
But to cover up the slap, they just picked a good man to do so. But it's a slap nonetheless. Which is unfortunate, given the state of Philly's public schools. The schools will not suffer as Bob Archie's demeanor is above reproach -- one of the nicest guys anyone would want to meet and is a pleasure to be one the opposite side of on a deal. However, the motivation was not about improving schools, but a political peeing contest...
Integrity requires Transparency
Bob Archie may be a nice guy and an honest guy, but how do you take a person who sits on the board of an EMO, operates Charter Schools, and appoint him in charge of handing out contracts to EMOs and Charter Schools? You would think that from the smell of it, to retain their integrity, Charter Schools and EMO operators would oppose this choice.
If we look at the history of EMOs, and the current investigation into 3 local Charter Schools, it is clear this an industry which requires ethical supervision.
I am not saying Bob Archie is not an ethical guy, I'm just saying based on boards he serves on, he is not the right man at this time for this position.
Citizens of Philadelphia do need a man of integrity, but they also need a process with integrity. Can you have one without the other?
I always cringe when people
I always cringe when people draw a line between service on boards and assuming that those who do are responsible for the failings of the industry.
Bob is a smart lawyer. If I were to categorize him, I'd call him a municipal finance or bond lawyer. He is also a partner at a major law firm, and as an African American, that is a rare situation.
So what happens a lot is that you are asked to serve on boards. Lots of boards. Boards want diversity. Organizations that have large African American constituencies often want African American board members.
However, in Philly, other than African American partners, some elected officials or their staff, there are few people who can raise money or provide access to specialized skills that non-profits need. (There are few other large businesses, save some bank foundations or drug companies.)
So Bob, smart lawyer, is asked by a Kenny Gamble to serve on his board. They are recognized across the country for their housing efforts. He is a housing finance expert -- public housing entities are amongst the largest issuers of debt. So it's a win win. Later, Kenny decides that a charter school would be a good idea.
To my mind, Bob's experience as a municipal finance and bond expert is a great advantage. The SRC needs people from broad backgrounds. And finance is an extremely important area to have expertise in. His experience with Kenny Gamble's work in South Philly, to me, should not preclude him, but is rather evidence of his interest in schools.
I understand that this process does not allow people to understand the appearance of a conflict. I think those who know Bob and his body of work will serve the SRC well. My only concern is that the politics behind his appointment may serve to overshadow his impeccable credentials.
What most people will say about Bob Archie is that he is a man of great demeanor and judgment. A thinker, not prone to extremes and not a political hack on any level at all. I think that government deserves more people like him and we should look to embrace those with that background.
I don't necessarily disagree with the prior post in the thread that conflict issues should be aired, but I don't think that someone of Bob's integrity should automatically be disqualified from this position, simply because of a poor process.
In Fairness
It is pleaseing to read the many fine testimonials to Mr. Archie. I have no doubt these testimonials are accurate and that Mr. Archie is a man of integrity. I have also been informed his wife is a public school teacher. I am confident he understands the trauma teachers face daily. None of this makes up though for a flawed process. A system without integrity can only damage the person it chooses as its leader. Perhaps that is what is happening here.
No 1. Now that a reliable and accurate state school funding system is in place there is no legitimate reason for the state to maintain control of our schools.
It is embarrassing that the care of our children, our most important duty, has been taken from us.
No 2. The selection process for those who oversee our children must be transparent. There is no room for pay to play when the lives of children are concerened.
No 3. Dr. Ackerman has proposed failed and questionable experiments as part of Imagine 2014. A lawyer's skills in probing these plans is valuable, but an education degree is necessary to dissect them and understand their motivations.
No 4. A person who sits on boards of EMOs and Charter Schoolsis not the person to be making these decisions.
I'm going to throw out a wild generalization
Is the read amongst folks who are most concerned basically that Rendell might be operating under the misperception that "Well Ridge's EMOs didn't work because he was a Republican but mine will work because I'm a Democrat"?
Its striking that Ackerman is not just vague but seems deliberately evasive on her answers on even basic questions, like what criteria they will use to determine what they call a "succeeding" school and what they call a "failing" school but still can generate rough estimates of how many schools they will turn over to new management, how much it will cost. It makes it sound like contracts not clearly stated educational metrics are driving the decision making process.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.