by Christopher Paslay
“The school superintendent, Arlene Ackerman, is here and doing a great job.”
–President Barack Obama’s remarks from his speech at Julia R. Masterman High School, Philadelphia, PA, September 14, 2010.
There is one thing noteworthy about the way administrators have run the Philadelphia School District over the past three years: their education agenda and initiatives are right from President Obama’s playbook in Washington.
Early in 2009, when the President chose former Chicago schools superintendent Arne Duncan as his Education Secretary, there emerged a new plan for public education in America. Known as the “National Reform Model,” Obama and Duncan set in motion a movement that has radically changed traditional public schools as we know them (tragically, as test scores and graduation rates continue to show, not for the better).
There are four school intervention models included in Obama’s national reform plan. They are titled “Turnaround,” “Restart,” “School Closure,” and “Transformation.”
As explained by PSEA.org:
“The Turnaround model requires schools to implement nine broad strategies, including replacement of the principals, high-quality professional development, adoption of new governance, and replacement of at least 50 percent of staff.
The Transformation model includes a new evaluation system for teachers and principals, high-quality professional development and design and development of curriculum with teacher and principal involvement.
The Restart model enables a district to re-open a school as a charter school or elect to have an education management organization run the school.
School Closure enables districts to transfer students to other, higher-achieving schools within the district’s boundaries, within a reasonable proximity.”
Do these reform plans sound a lot like those interventions contained in Dr. Ackerman’s Imagine 2014? The Philadelphia Inquirer thinks they do. In an editorial published in September of 2010, the newspaper wrote, “much of [Dr. Ackerman’s] five-year strategic plan almost mirrors Obama’s proposals.”
In some places the Ackerman and Obama agenda are indeed identical. In fact, in 2010, in order to receive stimulus money from the federal government’s SIG program (School Improvement Grant), the Philadelphia School District literally had to sign an agreement with the government stating that they agreed to commit to the four intervention models.
And sign they did. The District sold its soul to Washington and dove headfirst into a reform plan that took control away from the citizens of Philadelphia and placed it—along with millions of tax dollars—in the hands of charter schools and education management organizations and all manner of untested, experimental reform programs.
The fact that District officials so eagerly embraced the National Reform Model and are pushing an agenda direct from Washington might explain why they are able to get away with so many missteps (think past the current $629 million deficit to the 2010 controversy over security contracts and even past that to the 2009 debacle with Asian students at South Philly High School), any of which would have normally cost a top administrator his or her job.
In 2007, when former Philadelphia School District Superintendent Paul Vallas discovered a “surprise” $73 million deficit, he resigned. Granted, he had another job waiting for him in New Orleans, but there was real pressure coming from Mayor Street to hold him accountable. Likewise, there was pressure to hold James Nevels, the Chairman of the School Reform Commission, accountable; Nevels also resigned and was replaced with new leadership.
It seems clear, however, that current District leaders have no plans of going anywhere. Perhaps the powers that be in Washington have too much invested in the Philadelphia School District and the current direction it’s heading. This just might explain why Mayor Nutter, as well as the rest of the City, continues to stand down to School District officials.
Of course, Mayor Nutter will claim differently. He will tell the public that he has things in control, that he just made the District sign an “Accountability Agreement,” but what is this, really? Is it anything more than smoke and mirrors? (Is the pending audit by the IRS, which is now in limbo, much of the same?)
This isn’t to take away from the recent efforts of a few brave local leaders—such as Philadelphia City Councilmen Bill Green and PA State Reps Angel Cruz and Mike McGeehan—to try to bring an end to the District’s troubled leadership.
McGeehan continues to call for Philadelphia School Superintendent Arlene Ackerman’s resignation in order to bring some financial credibility back to the District in the eyes of Harrisburg.
In a letter to PA Governor Tom Corbett, McGeehan stated the following: “I am requesting that you, on behalf of the taxpayers of the Commonwealth and the school children of Philadelphia, compel the School Reform Commission to remove Superintendent Ackerman. The continuing controversy surrounding Ms. Ackerman does not serve the best interest of the taxpayers or children of Philadelphia. I ask you to use your authority to request the SRC to immediately end her tumultuous tenure.”
State Rep. Angel Cruz has also called for laws to regulate the power of the District superintendent. “The SRC clearly is not properly managing the superintendent or the district,” Cruz told his colleagues in Harrisburg. “My bill would give voters the option to choose the people who are running our school district.”
Philadelphia City Councilman Bill Green, in addition, blasted District leadership in a recent Inquire article headlined, “School District has a management deficit.” In it Green stated, “Recent events have shown that the crisis at the Philadelphia School District is more about oversight and stewardship than it is about dollars and cents.”
Even the local press seems to be questioning the District’s leadership. In a recent poll philly.com asked readers, “Does the Philadelphia School District need new management?” The results were quite telling: 371 folks said YES (97.4%); 3 answered No (.8%); and 7 responded Not Sure (1.8%).
Not that the District seems to care about what anybody thinks about their ability to do their job; they continue to operate as if it were business as usual. And all the while Philadelphia’s children—as well as the tax payers—continue to pick up the tab.
Tragically, perhaps because of a blessing from Washington, it appears as if this pattern of reckless management has no foreseeable end.