Like a broken record, for over two years the School Reform Commission has sounded the call for "shared sacrifice." The phrase provided the frame for its decision to break the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers' contract and impose what amounts to a huge wage cut. Their message has been: Everyone else has stepped up, and now teachers must do so.
But not everyone else has stepped up. Banks, corporations, and the mega-nonprofits in this city have not made sacrifices, nor has this body asked them to.
Let me be specific.
[Notebook editor's note: This commentary appeared on NewsWorks Thursday morning. Shortly after, Sylvia Simms said on Twitter that she would like to meet with the student protesters.]
Yesterday evening, students from the Philadelphia Student Union disrupted a screening at the School District headquarters of Won’t Back Down, a film largely critical of teachers' unions and supportive of charter school development.
The students sat silently in the first few rows of the auditorium, only to break out of their seats about 20 minutes into the film to sit in front of the screen and clap and chant in support of a fair funding formula and against the recent decision by the School Reform Commission to cancel the teachers’ union contract.
The sad state of Philadelphia's public schools inspires fury, frustration, and now, from the Democratic gubernatorial candidate Tom Wolf, a really bad idea for fundamental change.
Wolf recently proposed replacing the current five-member School Reform Commission that runs the schools with a locally elected school board.
I know Wolf means well. But establishing an elected school board in Philadelphia will not empower parents and their communities. It will put the selection of our school board members in the hands of the same people who pick judges, state legislators, sheriffs and city commissioners in this town: Democratic ward leaders.
Philadelphia public schools are in a financial crisis. They have been in crisis for the last three years.
Why has this happened? Where do we stand? What needs to happen next? These are the questions we face.
In addressing these questions, we should acknowledge that it is difficult to solve a problem if one is not clear about what the problem is. Even after years of upheaval and drama, there is some dispute as to the causes of our school budget crisis.
Some in our community maintain that the School District is in a budget crisis because it has a “structural deficit.” Others suggest that the crisis results from internal fiscal mismanagement. Still others claim that the crisis was caused by the withdrawal of federal stimulus funding.
The recent controversial move by the School Reform Commission to cancel the teachers’ union contract is indicative of the morass that is our public education system. Amid the backdrop of a District in permanent financial and political crisis, we are engulfed in a failing national debate about education reform. Addressing educational inequalities and the lack of social opportunity for kids has been lost between the two sides of the debate.
One side believes that dissolving the public system and replacing it with a diverse “marketplace of schools” will solve our problems. Yet that “marketplace” has not systematically produced better results.
Dear SRC: I'm recovering from surgery. And teaching full time. Thanks for decreasing my health benefits in secret. #phled— Larissa Pahomov (@Lpahomov) October 6, 2014
Almost exactly a month ago, I wrote about recovering from surgery and going back to work.
Then, on Monday, my school district had a stealth meeting to cancel my union’s contract and impose health - care benefits changes onto staff.
In response, I sent out a tweet that was personal, but important to me.
On Monday, Philadelphia public-school teachers reported to work, as they always do, in a workplace fraught with the most dangerous of all pitfalls: hope.
In the wake of budget cuts, they report to work daily with the hope that the children will be settled; that hallways will be clean; that classrooms will be equipped with luxuries like paper and chalk.
But there is one more hope they carry with them constantly — the hope that they will have a normal day.
Finding ways to create "innovative" high schools seems to be a perennial policy priority for the beleaguered Philadelphia School District—and a topic that we at Education Week just can't seem to stay away from.
This school year, despite being beset by a financial crisis, stalemated labor negotiations, and a toxic reform climate, the 131,000-student district opened three new outside-the-box high schools, the planning of which we covered last spring.
School has been in session for less than three weeks, and already school staff members are up to their eyeballs in problems, old and new.
Good will, dedication, and hard work can’t compensate for the huge holes left by the cutbacks. There isn’t enough time or enough adults in schools to do a satisfactory job of solving most of the problems. Can anyone say with confidence that this year will be better than last year’s mess?
Beginning this month, all School District principals will be subject to a new evaluation system, mandated by the state’s Department of Education.
In this system, called the "Framework for Leadership," principals will be rated by their supervisors on 20 different criteria as “failing,” “needs improvement,” “proficient,” or “distinguished.” According to PDE, the intent is to create schools that are on track in preparing students for college and career.
But the new rating system raises major issues for the School District and principals. Foremost is the fact that more than half the principals are in their first or second year in their positions. This brings up two serious questions: whether it is fair to judge them by the same standards as more experienced principals and whether they are getting the resources, support, and mentoring necessary to ensure their success.