- Pennsylvania Among 'Terrible 10' Most Regressive Tax States
- February 4 Non-Partisan Training: HOW TO RUN FOR ELECTION BOARD IN 2013: HOW TO RUN FOR COMMITTEEPERSON IN 2014
- Republican Governors Opt-In to Medicaid Expansion
- The Reports of Unions' Death Are Greatly Exaggerated
- Ask Allyson Schwartz to run for Governor
- Mind the gap: Opting Out of Medicaid Expansion Leaves Low-income Families Behind
- Jan. 14 Workshop:HOW TO RUN FOR ELECTION BOARD IN 2013; HOW TO RUN FOR COMMITTEEPERSON IN 2014
- Seth Williams on Guns, Jasmine Rivera on School Closures @PFC Meetup Wednesday
- PA Revenue Strong Midway Through Year; Tax Cut Could Have Big Impact
- What to Make of the Fiscal Cliff Deal?
Set off without a Paddle: Unpacking the School District’s Disaster Capitalism
Last night, a few more details (and scare tactics) from the School District’s radical plan for Philadelphia schools were released. If you didn’t believe that we were in the throes of disaster capitalism, you should now. Watch how the game is played:
The Philadelphia School District's financial situation is so dire that without a $94 million cash infusion from a proposed city property-reassessment plan, schools might not be able to open in the fall, leaders said Tuesday night.
At a district budget hearing, chief recovery officer Thomas Knudsen stressed that the district might fall off "the cliff on which we now stand so precariously" if swift action is not taken.
The district's money problems, coupled with a lack of academic progress and safety issues, have prompted Knudsen to propose a total overhaul of how schools are organized and run. More students would be shifted to charter schools, and the central office would be shrunk, with district schools managed by staff or outside organizations who bid to run them.
See the connections they make? We have a massive budget hole! Ergo, we need a total overhaul of schools!
There. Is. So. Much. Wrong. With. This. Shit. Where to start?
Yes, the School District has a massive budget hole. Let’s all acknowledge that reality, while also remembering that it seems pointless to totally trust the always shifting numbers that come from a School District that still employs the same financial wizards as during the reign of Arlene Ackerman.
The School District will attempt to fill this massive, mostly state-caused, budget hole through the following ways:
- Slashing wages and benefits from teachers, cafeteria workers and janitors.
- Forcing charter schools to take seven percent less money, per child.
- Scaring City Council into coughing up 94 million dollars more.
- And, in the end, borrowing. A lot. (They will do this by issuing bonds.)
All told, the ‘true’ deficit that they are making up with the above factors is hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars.
Where does the restructuring of the School District, the closing of 40 schools and moving tens of thousands of kids to charter schools, fit into all of this? Surely, this radical change in the district is also a huge part of the savings?
Nope. Not really. Despite needing to plug this massive, hundreds of millions of dollars big hole, this radical reorganization will save something like 33 million dollars (according to the School District’s questionable numbers). Again, compared to all the rest, borrowing included, which stretch well into the hundreds of millions of dollars, these savings— if they are true— are almost a pittance.
As a parent put it eloquently last night:
Parent Rebecca Poyourow said the district was resorting to "crazy-making" rhetoric and unfairly connecting the reorganization plan with the budget.
"It is at best foolish - and at worst devious - for you to choose this moment of fiscal crisis to foist a poorly conceived and primarily ideological reorganization scheme on Philadelphia schools," Poyourow said. "This move smacks of manipulation."
Again, and again, and again, this needs to be stated: The massive overhaul of our schools and the massive budget deficit are not connected.
So, why are the Mayor and Knudsen connecting these two things?
I can think of at least two possible conclusions. First, the radical changes are simply a long-standing ideological push, led by people who believe markets should solve the puzzle that is urban education. (In this game, the Mayor is anywhere from the person behind the scenes, pushing this along, or, alternatively, someone who is also being taken for a ride.) Maybe it really is that simple.
Or second, maybe Knudsen and Nutter are overseeing a bankrupt district, and want to ‘look good’ for Wall Street. They know they need to borrow money to keep this crippled mess hobbling along, so they are going with what they think will appeal to creditors.
Neither, of course, has anything to do with how we properly educate our children. But, this is the shock doctrine, where logic and reason are but constructs to be shouted down.
So, please, ignore the screaming threats of nuclear Armageddon that Mayor Nutter and Knudsen are making on your porch. Because while they are doing so, your television, your dining room set, and your youngest child are all being carried out the back door.



Lori Shorr Admits It
And one quick update: According to a tweet by Inquirer reporter Miriam Hill, the Deputy Mayor for Education has stated that the massive reorganization will not save any money.
There it is. No money at all is saved by this radical change. It behooves reporters then, to not let the Mayor, SRC and Knudsen connect these two issues. And it means that we can have a long, slow process for this piece of it, right?
The fallacy of revenue neutral
I love this notion of "revenue neutral" as if having 200 people running around closing schools and reorganizing the entire school district of Philadelphia doesn't cost anything in terms of priorities, resources, and time.
Agreed, but, it still points
Agreed, but, it still points to the clear fact that the financial hole and the massive reorganization are not linked, except for one to give cover to the other.
And, since its revenue neutral, I am sure the SRC will be in no hurry to do it...
Union busting without saving money?
I've been trying to take this whole thing in and am grateful for the helpful post, Dan.
But I'm just shocked. I had thought that the only reason one moves so radically to both charter schools and to handing over the administration of most of the school system to "achievement networks" is to save money by busting unions. (And that, by the way, is a reason but never a good reason to do anything.)
But they don't even save money by moving to charters or achievement networks? And charters have no record of more successful performance that regular schools. And all the experiments with turning schools over to networks of this sort have also not been shown to improve performance?
So this is either about giving politicos and the private sector control over contracts and patronage, which is also not a good reason to do anything--indeed it's a good reason to stop the process now.
Or it is the totally brain dead thrashing about of people who have not a clue about education grasping at last year's ideas about school reform simply because they think they have got to distract us from the disaster that the state mandated financial crisis is going to bring on one way or the other.
call their bluff
call their bluff.
I'm not voting for ANYONE who supports this nonsense, and I can point to Fatimah Muhammed's trouncing to show that neither will a lot of other people.
Michael Nutter is a terrible terrible mayor when it comes to education.
The state has a
The state has a constitutional mandate to educate the children living in Philadelphia. The state took over the school district, formed the SRC which admits it has been a failure, and it created a $650 million deficit. Indeed their bluff should be called, then perhaps a Republican governor who believes in less government might return the schools to the city.
City Councilmen Green, and Goode - are you reading?
Here's an excellent article.
http://www.citypaper.net/cover_story/2012-05-03-whos-killing-philly-publ...
Where is your leadership? We need you!
new orleans schools
in the city paper article the new orleans school district is mentioned . i have read in other publications that since 80% of new orleans kids are enrolled in charters that they have doubled the no of kids performing at grade level. is this an accurate claim?
I doubt that what you've read is a fair analysis
Was it talking about improvement in the system as a whole, or the charter schools as compared to those that continued as non-charter public schools?:
http://www.nola.com/education/index.ssf/2011/10/scores_for_new_orleans_s...
Given a fairly well-established history of fudging testing records, along with the negative potential of increased focused in some schools of "teaching to the test" and a lack of control for variables such as attributes of the student body, an unknown in terms of possible differences in resources allocated, etc., that metric of relatively small comparative gains for the charter schools should be taken with a huge grain of salt.
Further, with respect to the letter grades mentioned:
So even the question of relatively small comparative gains using dubious measurements that don't control for important variables seems fairly insignificant when compared to the absolute measures of quality. Without a focus on the underlying problems, relatively small improvement may essentially be window dressing.
That is the gist of the argument about what's going on here. The focus is on window dressing. Smoke and mirrors.
On second thought
If I think about those numbers a bit more, if the % of system improvement as a whole is twice as much as in the non-charter schools, that would mean that the % of improvement at the charters is not that small, relatively - especially because even though the charters make up the majority of the schools, the improvement with the charters would actually be higher than for the system as a whole.
The track record of charters needs to be evaluated carefully on both sides, IMO. This is a very complicated issue that is easily influenced by confirmation bias related to political ideology.
Still - I'm offended personally when someone trots out poorly supported policies under the guise of being data-driven, and then says that people who question the validity of those policies just needs to "grow up."
what i read , and i dont know if its true or not, is
that pre katrina , x% of all students in new orleans non private schools performed at grade level and then post katrina they rebuilt the school system using a pro charter model and now with 80% of non private school students attending charter schools they have 2x% of all non private school students performing at grade level. it would be interesting to know if that is accurate.
ian - my point
was that assuming that stat is valid - it means little without context. There could be a huge variety of related factors: for example, has the student body changed, are there changes in the amount of resources available, and related specifically to charters, how does any improvement for students enrolled in charters compare to improvement for students in non-charters and what might those differences be attributable to. Without that information, the stat is basically meaningless.
If your only interest is in finding a stat to back up a preconception that charters are good, without distinguishing correlation with causation, then the stat might be useful without any related context. Otherwise, not.
about new orleans
You also need to compare the amount of children New Orleans was educating pre and post Katrina.
New Orleans had made headway before Katrina as well. It became a role model of teacher collaboration and the pilot school where this occurred was the subject of articles and documentaries about teacher collaboration leading to improved test scores.
Penny Nixon seems to be aware of this and unlike previous efforts at least appears to be trying to bring authentic teacher collaboration to Philadelphia.
Kudos to Council: Where are Councilmen Goode and Kenney?
From reading the newspaper accounts, it seems that City Council (specifically Councilpeople Sanchez, Green, Greenlee, and Blackwell) are stepping up to the plate and providing leadership/asking for accountability on the SRC initiative to privatize our public schools.
I hope that someone writes a post to provide some more detail, but from what I can see thanks are in order.
Has Councilman Goode stepped up?
Has Councilman Kenney stepped up?
Where are those once proud YPPers?