The state Human Relations Commission has voted to investigate whether there was actionable discrimination involved in the situation at South Philadelphia High, and held a preliminary meeting yesterday. Reports from the meeting (including here) show the district superintendent still not willing to hear what some communities are saying about their experiences at the school.

Instead Ackerman seems to be actively trying to create narratives about what the problems are and aren't, and which are the "real faces" of the school:

Ackerman had booked a bus and brought along a number of South Philadelphia High "student ambassadors" - predominantly African American students not involved in the Dec. 3 fights - to talk about their efforts to promote harmony at the school.

Absent were any Asian students who had been victims of the attacks or who had boycotted the school last month.

"We don't know" why Ackerman enlisted no Asian students who were involved in the strife or its aftermath, Glassman said.

Her spokesperson explained the display, weirdly:

"They were hearing from the community, but the community is just one side of the story," she said. "She wanted to make sure that the commissioners heard the students' side - that's one voice that has been silent."

Though I think I live just within the South Philadelphia High School's boundaries, I'm not directly part of any community affected by the conflicts at the school. So I am not invested or accountable in the same way others are, including Ackerman. But from this outside perspective, I am not sure what valid motivation there is for her continued intervention in this manner. (She seems unhappy about it as well, with comments like "this is taking up a lot of my time.")

The Ackerman approach reminds me somewhat of when people absurdly talk about "reverse racism," a fiction. Racism does not work symmetrically in two directions. Systemic power imbalances exist, and matter. Likewise, while all students matter and should be valued and heard ("I'm the superintendent of almost 200,000 kids, and I care about them all"), it is not somehow unfair that students and communities suffering violence and marginalization seized a temporary platform to voice their experiences and ask for redress. It's not unfair that they are organized. All people are not the same, all experiences are not the same, and things do not need to work the same way for everyone all the time. Systemic power imbalances exist, and matter.

While this has become a profoundly complex object lesson in racism, power, and inter-/intra-community violence for all involved and observing, it is sad that district administrators are such major players in that.

Because you know, (effectively) ousted Commissioner Heidi Ramirez – who was the SRC’s first Latina member, was described as the SRC's "most qualified" member, had a doctorate in education, devoted her professional career to improving urban schools, and asked (gasp!) questions about needs, costs, budgets and performance assessments of programs during public meetings – really just didn’t cut it.

According to the Public School Notebook, this is the kind of Commissioner the state believes the SRC really needs:

1. Male
2. Attorney (Cozen O’Connor)
3. PA finance chair for McCain/Palin 2008
4. PA Chair Bush/Cheney 2000
5. former SEPTA board chair (and we know how pleasantly they’ve acted in a school financial crisis)
6. Education involvement: Two year stint as Chair of Business Leadership Organized for Catholic Schools, 1999-2001.

In a joint announcement with Sen. Pileggi, Gov. Rendell gave this reason for why David Girard-DiCarlo should sit on the District’s top oversight body:

"He is committed to making public education better."

At least someone can define a floor.

Going on the offensive, Sen. Dominic Pileggi called out the Governor on the horsetrading of SRC Commissioner Heidi Ramirez' position:

More than a month ago, Gov. Rendell approached Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi (R., Delaware) with a question.

A spot was coming open on the Philadelphia School Reform Commission, Rendell told Pileggi. Was Pileggi interested in recommending someone for him to consider appointing?

"I told him I would think about it," Pileggi said. "I told him I would see who was interested in serving, someone who I thought would add to the board."

The spot in question belonged to Heidi Ramirez, who shocked the school community Wednesday by resigning her seat. Rendell has said Ramirez told him she felt she no longer fit on a board that rarely questions the policies of Superintendent Arlene Ackerman.

Pileggi's version varies dramatically from the interview the Governor gave to the Philadelphia Public School Notebook earlier this week after Ramirez announced her resignation:

Gov. Rendell said in an interview shortly after her announcement that he had a replacement in mind that had been suggested by Republican Senate leader Dominic Pileggi. However, he insisted that he did not ask her to resign, and in fact told her that he would support her if she stayed -- and he added that, in any case, he couldn't force her out.

"I tried to talk her out of resigning on a couple of occasions, because I thought she was a great appointment," the governor said in a phone interview. "I felt she offered something to the board that nobody else did." He said he told her he'd be "pleased" if she decided to stay, but felt that her mind was made up.

Whatever the real story may be, what we do know is that Heidi Ramirez was in no position to resign a month ago when the Governor was peddling her position for political favors.

The City shouldn't be left off the hook either. Mayor Nutter had to be called in order to get a comment on the record about Ramirez' departure. No one from the City made a public statement about her resignation even though the two people from the Mayor's Education office were present at Ramirez' announcement.

Was the Commission’s most vocal member forced out for asking too many questions?

Update 7 p.m.: The Notebook reports that Gov. Rendell has confirmed that he has received a name from Sen. Pileggi for an appointment to the SRC. The Gov. professed not to know the political affiliation of the individual.

Update 6:15 p.m.: With tears in her eyes, Heidi Ramirez announced her resignation from the SRC stating that her vision was now "inconsistent" with that of the District. After the announcement, Superintendent Arlene Ackerman notably waited to be the last one to stand for Dr. Ramirez' ovation and rolled her eyes before standing.

Sources inside and outside the School District have informed me that School Reform Commissioner Heidi Ramirez will announce her intention to resign from the SRC. The announcement is expected this afternoon when the SRC convenes.

The announcement follows months of Superintendent Arlene Ackerman’s public critiques and complaints of Dr. Ramirez’ inquiries into areas such as the budget and contracts. It also follows Gov. Rendell’s decision in the spring to put Ramirez’s re-nomination in limbo and open angling by Harrisburg legislators to get Republican representation on the SRC. One can only guess that Dr. Ramirez, whom Governor Rendell once praised as "the most qualified" member of the SRC for her education background, got no backing from state or city officials.

Which leads you to wonder: Was the Commission’s most vocal member – arguably its most expert and engaged member – forced out for asking too many questions and expecting a modicum of accountability from District leadership? If so, what does that mean for the future of our schools and $3 billion of public money. If asking questions isn’t the job of an oversight body, then what is?

Read the full story at the Philadelphia Public School Notebook.

A round-up of things in my neck o’ the woods:

1. Foxwoods fiasco remains stalled: The bizarre Foxwoods fiasco remains stalled out, but that didn’t stop the casino from filing for a license extension last week. The petition reads like one long plaintive whine on why their gamble on a downtown casino hasn’t hit the jackpot yet. It also demonstrates how effective Councilman Frank "My Fighting Days are Over" DiCicco and Mayor "No Barriers to Casinos" Nutter were in stalling the project and potentially getting concessions from the casinos – something both have refused to do now that the project is off the waterfront.
2. Petition to stop predatory gambling practices: Meanwhile, the No Casino in the Heart of Our City Coalition is pushing a petition for City Council which targets predatory gambling practices (sign here). The "No Blank Check For Casinos" Campaign argues that Council has a moral and civic duty to enact basic protections when a slots house is placed next to neighborhoods and homes – things like: making sure casinos close between 2-8 a.m.; prohibiting free unlimited alcohold service, and prohibiting ATM machines and lending on the casino floors. So far DiCicco has argued that such protections are outside his control.

   Ironically, in 2007, DiCicco made sure the City amended its otherwise strict limitations on payday lending to exempt casinos. Seems like it’s not impossible after all for Council to consider citizens’ needs as well as casino needs.

3. Another out of touch Inky editorial: Over the weekend, the Inquirer published yet another awful editorial on the Philadelphia public schools. It was based on the annual report written by the District’s one-note Safe Schools Advocate, whose apparent sole contribution is an annual doomsday report on school violence. In its editorial "Rotten Apples," the Inquirer stated it’s time to "get rid of persistent troublemakers." Unfortunately, its tough on kids approach offered few options, and the Safe Schools Advocate, as expected, simply pounded on his one issue – noting the fact that schools don’t expel enough kids. That got me thinking about a recent Baltimore Sun story about Baltimore’s "go nuclear" approach: permanent expulsions under zero tolerance. With zero tolerance, there’s hardly any need for due process (parents have 10 days to appeal in writing) and the rotten apples are prohibited from attending any public, charter or disciplinary school, thereby placing the entire burden on the parents to either home-school or pay for private school.

(Cross-posted at the Notebook's blog)

Anytime the School District has to summon a line-up of politicians to testify on its behalf, you know something’s up.

On Wednesday night, a group of political heavy-hitters opened the School Reform Commission meeting to urge the SRC to vote in favor of the District’s controversial strategic plan – Imagine 2014. Meanwhile CEO Arlene Ackerman issued dramatic statements that emphasized just how much pressure the District was exerting on the SRC for its vote:

"Tonight is the night that we demonstrate to [children] that we care . . . Tonight is the night the School Reform Commission acts on behalf of all of our children," Ackerman said during the meeting, which drew a capacity audience to the District's headquarters on Broad Street near Spring Garden.

And vote they did, 4-0 with hardly a question asked. Not one clarifying remark was made by a single commissioner to explain why each had voted on a plan that had generated lukewarm enthusiasm and enough controversy to result in last-minute plan adjustments, community meetings, a new budget, and political muscling.

Which makes one wonder: what happened behind closed doors to put the muzzle on the SRC?

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:

Yesterday the School Reform Commission terminated contracts for six education management organizations (EMOs), and put another 20 on one-year probation with plans to closely scrutinize how money is spent. The District formerly had 38 schools in a “multiple” provider model with for-profit companies, non-profits and universities in the mix.

Edison Schools, Inc., the largest provider with 20 schools, lost 25% (four) of its contracts, and saw another twelve put on probation. Temple University lost one contract at Dunbar Elementary; and Victory Schools lost its contract with the all-boys school Fitzsimons.

Interestingly (or predictably), local providers Foundations Inc. and Universal Companies lost no contracts, although Foundations saw three of four of its schools placed on probation. Universal has one of its two contracts also on probation.

Only 12 schools, less than a third of the EMOs, received a multiple year contract from the District.

Although at first glance, the effort is a modest one, it’s potentially a blow to the privatization movement nationally and marks a rethinking of the role of EMOs in Philadelphia under the administration of new CEO Arlene Ackerman. More important, it should highlight the work of grassroots parent and student groups, like the Philadelphia Student Union and Parents United for Public Education, who have kept this issue on the front burner as a question of quality school choice vs. multiple school choice.