When I discussed the Philadelphia School Reform Commission’s actions last week, I mentioned that I felt like the superintendent had staged an exercise in kabuki theater. By creating deadlines, threatening to close schools, and setting dollar figures for what the schools required, he created both a sense of crisis and an impression that he could resolve the crisis if certain steps were taken. I believe that this helped him create an atmosphere of support for the radical steps that he took last Thursday.
Not only have subsequent events reinforced that suspicion, they lead me to believe that the radical steps, and not a safe and orderly opening for schools, were really the main goal all along. First, the big Friday deadline wasn’t really an urgent deadline. Mayor Michael Nutter and City Council President Darrell Clarke both said that the city would find some way to get $50 million to the district, but they could not agree on how. They just said that they would work it out eventually. So after all of the dueling press conferences, nothing had actually changed. Superintendent Hite said that was good enough, they didn’t need the money by Friday. Why bother giving an ultimatum if all that it took to solve the problem was a vague IOU? Because it created a week of media stories about how the schools might not open at all. That makes many parents and members of the community feel desperate, so they’re willing to support drastic actions. Look at Ronnie Polaneczky’s column from the weekend, that argued that the school code suspension was “good for kids†this year, but that it should be reexamined when the crisis is over.
Second, the $50 million figure was essentially random and bore no relation to what would be required to open schools with the staffing required. Even as the district now says that everything is set for all Philadelphia schools to open on time, many of those schools are getting staff and materials back on a piecemeal basis. Many schools are not getting any counselors back at all. Most schools are not getting the number of aides that they had last year back. Some schools are using temporary employees instead of experienced full-time secretaries to handle registration and other responsibilities. As a teacher and a parent, I have to laugh so that I don’t cry at the thought of sending my daughter to school in that situation. I work with some incredible student leaders who are going to be getting ready to apply for college, but because my school has fewer than 600 students I don’t know if there will be a counselor to give them any guidance. How is that giving the students the education that they deserve? If the ultimatum had really been about making sure that the schools had what they needed to open safely, the demand should have been for a much higher number and it should have been made much sooner.
Let me pause my list to emphasize that point. As things stand right now, Philadelphia public schools will not have an adequate number of counselors, secretaries, and school aides to provide the education our students need. For all of the ultimatums, we are still behind the eight ball.
Which leads to the third bit of support for the idea that last week’s deadline was never really about guaranteeing that our schools would be ready for opening in September. The ultimatum was delivered to the city government, which has already passed bills that would have provided the funding that the district requested from them, and not the state. Not only has the state not provided the funding that the district requested from them, they wouldn’t even pass the bills that would have let the city implement its plan to raise its share. The city has stepped up with tax increases for the last two years to provide the district with more funds, while the state has not. So why was Superintendent Hite asking Mayor Nutter to deliver a vague IOU that wouldn’t solve the problem anyway, instead of Governor Corbett? Why isn’t the superintendent trying to direct more Philadelphia parents’ attention to the responsibility that the state government bears for funding education? We do know that the governor has been urged to use this situation as a way to score political points by going after the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, of which I am a member. And the suspension of the school code targets measures that directly affect the job status and compensation of PFT members. It does not take me very much effort to connect the dots of the two agendas.
So that’s why I’m not sold on the idea that last Friday was actually a meaningful deadline in any way, but instead a manufactured crisis whose timing came remarkably close to the SRC vote to suspend the school code. And if you’ll indulge me, let’s take a second to consider that suspension. One of the major selling points of this suspension is that it would give the district flexibility to put staff where they were needed. Let me repeat that if the district had the funds to avoid the layoffs or recall everyone who was laid off, positions would already be filled by people who were familiar with the jobs and the schools. It’s only this half-measures move to put counselors only in larger schools that creates the need for flexibility in the first place.
A possible exception might be the cases where a school was closed, and so some counselors, teachers and aides would be forced to transfer to other schools. This is why Polaneczsky is willing to support the SRC action, for example. Now, I admit I am not familiar with the rules for site-selection and right-to-follow as they apply to counselors. But if it had not been for the staff cuts, then presumably all of those employees would still be employed by the district. If the existing placement rules would have made it difficult for those employees to go where their students were going, it may have been possible to negotiate something with the union to allow for that. But that move was never tried and the crisis atmosphere gave the superintendent an opening to go after the rules that govern not just the particular schools employees would be assigned, but whether a laid off employee gets his or her job back in the first place.
Why does this matter? Because it means that our students are being used as bargaining chips. To an extent that is inevitable and all sides can justify to themselves that they’re doing it for the students’ best interest. But this goes beyond the normal jockeying of a contract negotiation. It’s poisoning an already strained group of relationships and killing the trust required to address the challenges of urban public education. If the game is going to be rigged this severely, then the only smart move is not to play along.