Analysis:
do Philadelphians still have a voice at the School District?
Understanding the state takeover of Philadelphia's
schools
by Len
Rieser
On December
23, 2001, Philadelphians awoke to the startling news that their schools
were now -- as the Philadelphia Inquirer put it -- "the property
and problem of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania."
The transfer
of control, which was reported to have occurred at precisely 12:01 a.m.,
seemed to plunge the city's children into uncertainty. "We're in
[Governor] Schweiker's hands now," a Daily News columnist
wrote, with evident apprehension.
So what does it all mean? Over a year later, the Commonwealth does not seem especially involved in District affairs. There is little evidence that Harrisburg views the Philadelphia schools as its "property" -- or its problem. Most of the decision-making seems to be occurring where it always did: in the School District administration building at 21st and the Parkway.
|
Did
the takeover, one might ask, really happen? The
answer is easy. It did, and it's still in effect. But the question
of what the takeover will mean for Philadelphia children isn't as
simple. That's because the takeover law, while drastic, has also turned out to have some flexibility. And city residents have found that, when there is a grass roots protest or pressure is applied, even points that seemed to be certainties may be open to negotiation. |
 |
A less
drastic shift
The best-known
aspect of the takeover was the transfer of power from school board to
School Reform Commission (SRC). Previously, the mayor appointed the school
board, whereas under the state takeover law, the governor was given the
power to appoint a decisive majority -- four out of the five members --
of the SRC.
But while
that's what the law allowed, it isn't quite what happened. Presumably
in response to pressure from Philadelphia, ex-Governor Schweiker agreed
to allow the mayor to appoint two SRC members rather than one. Schweiker
described the power-sharing arrangement between the state and city as
a "full partnership." When one of the mayor's two SRC appointees
left this year, newly elected Governor Rendell again allowed Mayor Street
to fill it.
While some
had feared Schweiker's appointees would be a collection of hostile outsiders
unfamiliar with Philadelphia's needs, two Schweiker appointees (as well
as both of the mayor's) are Philadelphia residents. The one exception
(James Nevels, the chair) is from nearby Swarthmore. Complaints of anti-Philadelphia
bias on the part of the SRC have been relatively infrequent.
Still, the
majority of the SRC are the former Republican governor's appointees. And
they may be there for a long time: two have terms that run until 2008,
while the term of the third expires in 2006. Under the law, even Governor
Rendell can't replace them before their terms end, unless they resign
or commit serious violations.
But might
an SRC member resign at some point? And if so, might Governor Rendell
consider the wishes of city residents in choosing a replacement? It seems
possible that the makeup of the SRC will change as time goes on, and perhaps
in ways that lead it toward greater local control.
What about
the CEO, Paul Vallas? Clearly, his boss is the SRC, which hired him. Does
this mean that Vallas is actually working for the state? Yes; but he's
working for the Street appointees too, and in any event the "state"
includes a range of powers and points of view (Governor Rendell, Speaker
Perzel, and any number of others).
It also seems
likely that the degree of support that Vallas receives from Philadelphia
citizens may influence how long he stays in office. Here again, there
are multiple forces at work.
Privatization
scaled back
Another aspect
of the takeover involved "privatization" of District schools
and services. And here too, there are shades of gray.
On the one
hand, the law authorized wholesale privatization, and that's exactly what
Governor Schweiker proposed -- both for schools and the central office.
But then came the community outcry, with the result that the governor's
proposals were drastically scaled back -- and so far, privatization remains
limited to 45 schools and follows a "thin management" model.
Less known,
because they have not yet come into play, are the takeover law's provisions
concerning union contracts. Under the law, certain issues were declared
"out of bounds" for collective bargaining. These include such
matters as privatization agreements, as well as "staffing patterns
and assignments, class schedules ... and teacher preparation time."
Thus, when
the PFT contract comes up for renewal next year, these issues will apparently
not be on the table. Instead, they will be left to the SRC to decide.
Also, so long as the District is under SRC control, strikes by school
employees -- which are permitted, within certain limits, everywhere else
in the Commonwealth -- are illegal.
It sounds
drastic, but here again, political forces are likely to come into play,
for example, the unions may be able to influence SRC decisions even on
bargaining issues.
More chapters
to come
Remarkably,
the SRC itself was given the power to decide, by majority vote, when the
takeover will end. Thus, the takeover could go on for years -- even if
the Governor, not to mention the citizens of Philadelphia, believed that
it should end. But whether that is really likely is another question.
The courts
could also intervene to end the takeover, but so far, they haven't. Early
on, the PFT and others filed suit to block the takeover on the ground
that it violated the Pennsylvania Constitution. The state Supreme Court
rejected the suit.
Another suit,
arguing that the takeover illegally deprived Philadelphians of their right
to home rule, was dismissed by a federal court. And a third case, contending
that Edison Schools had illegally benefited from its own study recommending
the hiring of outside management organizations, also failed.
But even
here, things aren't completely settled. As the takeover unfolds, issues
may arise that the courts will be willing to consider. It's also possible
that, if the political pressure were there, Pennsylvania's General Assembly
might amend or even repeal the takeover law.
Clearly,
there are more chapters ahead in this saga. And Philadelphians, many of
whom feared that they had lost all say concerning their schools, may continue
to find opportunities to exert their influence.
Len Rieser
is co-director of the Education Law Center of Pennsylvania, a non-profit
legal advocacy organization dedicated to ensuring that all of Pennsylvania's
children have access to a quality public education.
This article was first printed in the Summer 2003 edition of the Philadelphia
Public School Notebook, and was part of a series that explored the
theme: "The takeover-one year later." The Notebook is
an independent quarterly newspaper that serves as a voice for parents,
students, teachers, and other members of the community who are working
for quality and equity in Philadelphia's public schools.
View the PDF version
Note: You will need Acrobat
Reader to view or print these notes in Portable Document Format (PDF).