The Philadelphia Public Schools is one of the oldest and greatest public school districts in the country. I know this because my father never stopped reminding me that this was so. My father graduated from Central High School in Philadelphia in 1942. He stated that his diploma was the equivalent of a college diploma. I never believed him, yet if you look at the diploma, you can see he was awarded a degree of Bachelor of Arts and it is indeed considered the same as a college diploma. There were 252 graduates in his class. All men. 245 were white and 7 were black. They were the 178th graduating class of Central High which was founded in 1837. My father passed away in 2005 at the age of 81. When he died, the Philadelphia Public School District was bankrupt. It was operating in debt. It had lost tens of thousands of students and families as they moved out of the city to the suburbs. The achievement of the district's remaining student body was amongst the lowest districts in the state. The school district was taken over by the State of Pennsylvania. An appointed School Reform Commission (SRC) was managing the District.
Something went terribly wrong. This demise of this once great school district is a sad story in three parts.
Part I - The Ascension of the District from 1837 to 1964
The Birth and Growth of Public Education
"In 1837 the Philadelphia Board of Education—then known as the Board of Controllers—embraced “universal education” and opened the city’s publicly supported and publicly controlled schools to all school-age children, free of tuition. The board proudly proclaimed: “the stigma of poverty, once the only title of admission to our public schools, has . . . been erased from our statute book, and the schools of this city and county are now open to every child (William Cutler III)."
At the time, neither the district nor the state provided adequate funding for a truly progressive education, so the district pinched pennies for much of the late 19th century. This meant limited resources and a poorly paid faculty.
In 1905, Pennsylvania lawmakers passed the Pennsylvania’s Public School Reorganization Act and in 1911 they gave the Philadelphia School Board the power to raise or borrow funds needed to meet the city's growing educational needs. Thus began a period of significant growth in the district. Schools were built, the quality of instruction was improved, teacher compensation was increased and the goals of the schools were expanded:
District President Henry R. Edmunds stated in 1911: “There was a time when the public school was regarded as being simply a place for scholastic instruction. … To-day, a multitude of interests are being cared for by the public school system which no one dreamed of…medical inspection, vocational training, music, physical training, social centers, open air classes, evening lectures to adults, school gardens and summer playgrounds. … There is a growing tendency for the community to regard the school as the center of much of its social life."
The district grew during the 20th century to over 200,000 students. It expanded its programming to include schools specifically for college prep, vocational training, special needs and the arts. It built schools as the economy and population expanded through the two World Wars. The growth in knowledge about educating children and the growth of Philadelphia universities (U. of Pennsylvania, Temple, Drexel, La Salle) during the 20th century also contributed to the growth and quality of the district. The district was solvent, growing and succeeding at educating the post war baby boom generation.
Part II - The Demise of the District from 1964 to 2000
Voting With Their Feet
It is hard to tell when the demise of the district actually began. The following essay from Philly.com makes a good argument for 1964.
The biggest events are always the ones you don't notice at the time, and in the case of Philadelphia that was de-industrialization. The Industrial Revolution was dying -- factories were already shutting down and people were moving to the suburbs, as the city's population had already peaked over 2 million in 1950. Upheaval brings unrest, and in Philadelphia, as in many other cities, the tinderbox was race.
This shouldn't have surprised anyone -- the years and months leading up to 1964 contained many warnings like 1963's "Folcroft Incident," a mini-riot that erupted when the first black family tried to move into an all-white development just outside the city. As noted here a couple of weeks ago, New Year's Day 1964 set the tone for this remarkable year when the threat of protests and then a court order brought the end of the embarrassing tradition of blackface in the Mummer's Parade.
The big picture was this: Black Philadelphians -- confined to ghettos like the stretch of North Philadelphia known then as "The Jungle" and with powerful complaints about police brutality and a lack of city services and job opportunities -- were ready to explode. White Philadelphians, complaining of social unrest and crime, were getting out, accelerating a period of so-called "white flight."
The coil was so tightly wound that it didn't take much to blow everything up on the hot summer night of August 28, 1964 -- just a police traffic stop at 23rd and Columbia, a scuffle, a gathering crowd and a false rumor that cops had killed a pregnant black woman. While Philadelphia was "lucky:" in the sense that no one was killed in three nights of rioting, thus nothing compared to the apocalypse that was coming to Watts, Detroit and Newark, some 225 stores were burned or looted, while 341 people were injured and 775 were arrested.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Was-1964-the-most-important-year-in-modern-Philadelphia-history.html#kAwt4uf1oEKkMrb9.99
The decade of the 1960's in America brought 4 assassinations, riots in most urban centers, an awakening black population angry from hundreds of years of inequality and a war in Viet Nam that unsettled our country. The result of this tumult was a flight by the middle class out of the city to the suburbs. This movement out of the cities which began in the late 1950's continued for 50 years. Loss of the urban middle class (both black and white) had a profound effect on the city in general and the public schools in particular. In essence, the district went from a racially and socio-economically balanced student body to a population made up of the working poor and predominantly students of color.
Needless to say, the school district's changing demographics created a pedagogical and organizational dilemma. Methodologies that succeeded over the last century, were not effective in this much more volatile environment. Was the problem poverty, or race or cultural mismatch or simply that students did not come to school ready to learn? Or was the problem that the schools were not prepared to meet the challenges presented by such a needy population. Frankly, most urban school districts did not have a clue to the complexity of working with poor, disenfranchised populations. Philadelphia, like most urban school districts, modified their programs around the edges, but did not change its core structure or culture. It is often easier to maintain the status quo and blame the students, families and society.
At the same time that the schools were grappling with its changing demographics, the Pennsylvania state legislature passed Act 195 giving teachers unions the right to strike. In Philadelphia, there were 6 teacher strikes in 11 years.
At the turn to the 21st century, the public schools seemed incapable of educating urban youth with all of the baggage that poverty inflicts. The situation came to a head in the late 1990's through a series of Pennsylvania Department of Education initiatives.
Needless to say, the school district's changing demographics created a pedagogical and organizational dilemma. Methodologies that succeeded over the last century, were not effective in this much more volatile environment. Was the problem poverty, or race or cultural mismatch or simply that students did not come to school ready to learn? Or was the problem that the schools were not prepared to meet the challenges presented by such a needy population. Frankly, most urban school districts did not have a clue to the complexity of working with poor, disenfranchised populations. Philadelphia, like most urban school districts, modified their programs around the edges, but did not change its core structure or culture. It is often easier to maintain the status quo and blame the students, families and society.
At the same time that the schools were grappling with its changing demographics, the Pennsylvania state legislature passed Act 195 giving teachers unions the right to strike. In Philadelphia, there were 6 teacher strikes in 11 years.
"Between 1970 and 1981 the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers (PFT) went on strike six times—job actions that greatly improved its members’ salaries, benefits, and working conditions but also dramatically increased their employer’s expenses. The school district’s budget more than doubled, from $312 to $711 million, during those years. At the same time, the city’s slow transition from an industrial to a service economy weakened the tax base. A rare combination of slow growth and hyper-inflation further compromised the district’s financial situation. The Board of Education was forced to raise class size and furlough teachers, angering parents as well as PFT leaders. It even resorted to carrying deficits over from one budget year to the next, prompting questions about its fiscal leadership. (William Cutler III)."Over 40 years from the 1960's to the 1990's the combination of middle class flight to the suburbs, a growing budget deficit and an educational program that was not aligned with the needs of a poor and alienated students had a negative effect on achievement. By every measure - test scores, attendance, discipline, graduation rates - the students in the Philadelphia Public Schools were not achieving.
"By the beginning of the twenty-first century, however, many Philadelphia parents had opted for suburban schools, charter schools, or home-schooling, and the School District of Philadelphia had become in many ways what it had originally been—a system for poor and disadvantaged children (William Cutler III)".
At the turn to the 21st century, the public schools seemed incapable of educating urban youth with all of the baggage that poverty inflicts. The situation came to a head in the late 1990's through a series of Pennsylvania Department of Education initiatives.
Part III - The State takes Over from 2001 to the Present
Dismantling the District
1993 - The Pennsylvania Department of Education froze the funding formula for school districts. This meant that the state would contribute less money per public school student in the future. Two lawsuits were filed by the city and the Philadelphia School District in 1997 and 1998 to address these inadequate funding levels. One of the lawsuits occurred in federal court and accused the state of discriminating against school districts with large numbers of non-white students.
1996 - On the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA), which was first administered in 1996, students in most Philadelphia schools scored substantially below all other schools in the Commonwealth.
1997 - Pennsylvania joined the school choice movement by passing Act 22 of 1997 known as the Charter School Law.
2001 - The state took over the Philadelphia public schools in exchange for providing Philadelphia schools with increased funding and an opening of the district to school choice. The district was now being run by the School Reform Commission (SRC).
Thus began a decade of controversy. The media portrayed this effort as a battle between the state and the local district, between public education and school choice, between public and private, between education reformers and the union. The politics of the controversy sold newspapers. The media never portrayed this effort as a battle between the haves and the have-nots, the cities and the suburbs, the employed and the unemployed. They never discussed the root of the problem.
The Philadelphia public school controversy came to a head last Monday when the School Reform Commission moved to cancel the contract with the teachers' union, the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers. The commission was not able to get the union to negotiate a contract that provided a savings by making teachers contribute to their health care payments (a common give back in teacher union contracts over the last decade.) In frustration, they canceled the contract. This decision is the first of its kind in the country since teachers unions were given the right to strike 45 years ago.
There is a war going on in the Philadelphia public schools between parents, students, teachers, administrators, charter schools and the state government. Philadelphia's public schools are broke - financially, academically, emotionally. When middle class citizens left the city and moved to the suburbs, the nature of the demographics of the urban core, the tax base of the urban core and the vitality of the urban core changed radically. The problem with the school district is that it did not understand and/or have the capacity to adapt to these new circumstances. An argument can be made that if by most any measure a school district is failing at educating its students, the district must find an alternative method to educate its children. Charter schools are a first attempt to provide an alternative. This is often welcomed by the inner city student and parent who is seeking a quality education, but is seen as a takeover attempt by the district (and union). Some charter schools are excellent and superior to the existing public school... and some are not.
This is a sad story with no upside. 177 years ago the City of Brotherly Love embarked on public education for all of its citizens. At that time the leadership had a belief that the education of all students was imperative. We live in a much more complex time. But the imperative remains. The City of Brotherly Love.
1997 - Pennsylvania joined the school choice movement by passing Act 22 of 1997 known as the Charter School Law.
2001 - The state took over the Philadelphia public schools in exchange for providing Philadelphia schools with increased funding and an opening of the district to school choice. The district was now being run by the School Reform Commission (SRC).
Thus began a decade of controversy. The media portrayed this effort as a battle between the state and the local district, between public education and school choice, between public and private, between education reformers and the union. The politics of the controversy sold newspapers. The media never portrayed this effort as a battle between the haves and the have-nots, the cities and the suburbs, the employed and the unemployed. They never discussed the root of the problem.
"By the time Vallas arrived in 2001, the Board of Education had ceased to exist, replaced by what came to be known as the School Reform Commission (SRC). Made possible by the Education Empowerment Act (2000), the SRC brought an end to local control of public education. Too many appeals for more money had finally convinced the governor and the legislature to assert state control. The district would be run by a committee of five, three chosen by the governor and two by the mayor. The idea that the city’s public schools should educate every child also faded. In competition with private schools, charter schools, and suburban school districts, enrollment in the School District of Philadelphia dropped by more than 45,000 students in just four years, from about 207,000 in 2006 to about 160,000 in 2010. At the same time, its proportion of low-income students reached more than 70 percent (William Cutler lll)."By 2012 the School Reform Commission had turned 45 of its lowest achieving schools over to charter school organizations to run. This was the first indication that it was not business as usual. This was taken as a direct attack on the previous school board, the union, the administration, the entire public school enterprise. If the impact of lower revenues, loss of enrollment and low achievement could not be handled by the existing public school system, an alternative would be used.
The Philadelphia public school controversy came to a head last Monday when the School Reform Commission moved to cancel the contract with the teachers' union, the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers. The commission was not able to get the union to negotiate a contract that provided a savings by making teachers contribute to their health care payments (a common give back in teacher union contracts over the last decade.) In frustration, they canceled the contract. This decision is the first of its kind in the country since teachers unions were given the right to strike 45 years ago.
There is a war going on in the Philadelphia public schools between parents, students, teachers, administrators, charter schools and the state government. Philadelphia's public schools are broke - financially, academically, emotionally. When middle class citizens left the city and moved to the suburbs, the nature of the demographics of the urban core, the tax base of the urban core and the vitality of the urban core changed radically. The problem with the school district is that it did not understand and/or have the capacity to adapt to these new circumstances. An argument can be made that if by most any measure a school district is failing at educating its students, the district must find an alternative method to educate its children. Charter schools are a first attempt to provide an alternative. This is often welcomed by the inner city student and parent who is seeking a quality education, but is seen as a takeover attempt by the district (and union). Some charter schools are excellent and superior to the existing public school... and some are not.
This is a sad story with no upside. 177 years ago the City of Brotherly Love embarked on public education for all of its citizens. At that time the leadership had a belief that the education of all students was imperative. We live in a much more complex time. But the imperative remains. The City of Brotherly Love.
* Much of the background for this post is from two sources:
- William Cutler III essay: Public Education: The School District of Philadelphia and
- Eva Travers analysis: Philadelphia School Reform: Historical Roots and Reflections on the 2002-2003 School Year Under State Takeover
No comments:
Post a Comment