Tag: PAGov

Philly Education Should Consider Shorter, Fully Resourced School Year

Philadelphia’s public schools are in limbo once again, facing a major budget shortfall with no clear path to sufficient funding. A municipal cigarette tax that would have helped alleviate, although not eliminate, the problem is on hold because the state House, Senate, and governor can not agree on a number of budget particulars. So School Reform Commission Bill Green, District Superintendent William Hite, and Mayor Michael Nutter have been threatening not to open schools in September unless sufficient funding is in place. I think that it’s a good idea to threaten a dramatic gesture, but I don’t think the district’s leaders have chosen the right one. They shouldn’t be threatening to keep schools closed in September. They should be promising to open them.

Right now the best case scenario for September is that the district opens schools at a funding and staffing level similar to last year. This “Doomsday” level of funding resulted in many students attending schools without counselors or full-time school nurses, without necessary supplies, and without many extracurricular activities. Private fundraising helped alleviate some of these problems at some schools, but there is no guarantee that schools will be able to stretch their dollars even to match what they did last year. That’s not an acceptable best case by any stretch of the imagination. The district leadership needs to change the game and change the conversation to make it clear that this is unacceptable.

They took a step in doing so in May, when the School Reform Commission first refused to pass a budget with even more drastic cuts and then finally passed one that assumed that the government would find the funding for at least a Doomsday level. I have seen a number of education advocates suggest that the district go further and pass a budget that assumes an adequate level of funding and open the schools in September based on that budget. Obviously, if the city and state do not provide additional money, the funds would run out before June. If that happens, that is when Hite and the SRC should close the schools.

I have a number of reasons for thinking this is a good plan, but I’ll try to boil them down to three main ideas.

1. It’s election season. There’s an election in November, and right now the odds look pretty good that Pennsylvanians will elect a new governor who has already said that he wants an education funding formula and an increase in the share of education paid for by the state, rather than districts. If there has to be a moment of no return, I’d like to at least have the chance of a sympathetic governor in Harrisburg. Perhapseven more importantly, Philadelphia and other urban districts need support from legislators in suburban and rural Pennsylvania. That is often a challenge, because those areas tend to elect legislators who are less sympathetic to Philadelphia. But if we can highlight the importance of full, fair funding as a regional issue between now and November, it is possible that we might be able to build some coalitions with our suburban neighbors and improve our chances of passing something good.

2. Shared sacrifice. Right now there’s a lot of us-against-them in the funding debate. The governor and SRC have asked for a lot of union concessions, and are threatening layoffs. Staff members criticize district administrators over their salaries and the money spent on consulting and testing, among other expenses. Parents and communities feel that their neighborhood schools are being targeted. If all schools are fully funded and staffed, and we all know that we’re all going to shut down together if there is no solution to the funding problem, than we can all work together to ensure that we achieve an enduring solution.

3. Better results. Let’s be clear: without a lot more money, this is not going to be a great year for Philadelphia students. The “open fully staffed until the money runs out” plan has a best case scenario in which we start the year on solid ground and then get funding midway through to finish that way. The “Doomsday funding for a full year” plan has a best case scenario where lots of kids don’t have the counselors, nurses, activities, and support that they need while school staffs drive themselves crazy playing a combination of triage, whack-a-mole, and marathon running. But if no more money comes in, either way, we’re looking at a worst-case scenario where it may be impossible to get a full year in. If we wind up in that scenario, I would much rather the district put its best foot forward for five to eight months. Let’s focus on quality time, not the quantity of time.

So that’s my pitch. September should be the start of the showdown over funding, not the climax.

Pittsburgh Teachers Union’s PA-Gov Endorsement Is a Safe Move – and a Bad Move

In my education politics news roundup this week, I noted that the Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers has endorsed U.S. Representative Allyson Schwartz for the Democratic nomination for governor of Pennsylvania. Without knowing any of the internal discussions or consideration that led to this decision, I think this was a mistake, and I hope that my union, the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, does not replicate it.

When a group like a union makes a political endorsement, I believe it is trying to accomplish two things. One, it wants the see that the winner of the race is someone who is already inclined to support the same things that it wants. Two, it wants the winner of the race to feel like it helped the winner to win, so that the winner will continue to be responsive to the group’s desires. I think these are both appropriate things to do, given our electoral and political system. There are always tradeoffs to be made in policymaking, and interest groups are constantly competing to make sure that they are on the right side of those tradeoffs. It would be foolish to assume that any officeholder is an automaton who can somehow make policy decisions from a position of true neutrality, so competition of interest groups is what we have.

Given those two needs, I have been wondering what Schwartz brings to the table that other Democratic candidates do not. I have lived in Schwartz’s district since before she won the seat, and I honestly do not remember education being a particularly vital issue in her campaigns. My own mental associations with Schwartz are more focused on women’s rights and health care issues, along with a slight tendency toward the moderate side of the Democratic economic spectrum. But my memory might be faulty, so I tried to find some examples that Schwartz is a strong supporter of the kinds of education policies that would benefit teachers and students in districts like Pittsburgh.

Charter school expansion tends to be a hot-button issue within Democratic circles, with some Democrats more inclined to favor creating more charter schools and others opposed. Since the charter school funding system is one of the major things that have contributed to Philadelphia’s funding problems, I did a Google search for “Allyson Schwartz charter schools.” In ten pages of results, I found a number of stories relating to the current campaign, but the only thing I found about Schwartz’s record on education was that she voted in favor of a Republican-authored bill called the Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act. This bill, which did not pass the Senate, “encourages states to support the development and expansion of charter schools,” according to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. Granted, it passed 365-54, so it’s not like it was a contentious vote. But the National Education Association did oppose the measure, so at the very least I would say that Schwartz was not being a leader on the issue from the public school side.

Again, I don’t put a lot of stock in this one vote. I do put stock in the fact that this was the only story I found about Schwartz and charter schools. Furthermore, in the Pittsburgh union’s press release, the union does not cite any particular action that Schwartz has taken in her congressional or state legislative career to show leadership on the issue of education. I did another search on “Allyson Schwartz health care,” and within two pages of results I found articles citing her role in developing tax credits for medical research and an interview where she discussed her work on health care in Congress. At the end of that interview, she was asked about her priorities and she said:

Fiscal responsibility. This government has borrowed and spent money we simply don’t have. We need to work toward a balanced budget to reduce debt because if we don’t, we’ll leave it to our children and grandchildren. Restoring integrity, finding common ground, facing challenges from economic competitiveness to access to health care, to safety in the world; those are the broad themes I’m interested in. As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, I will play a role in expanding access to health care and making sure we meet our commitment to seniors and to reimburse our hospitals and physicians. I’ve also been engaged in some of the issues around energy – I have some legislation to promote energy efficient commercial buildings and also dealing with global warming and energy independence.

Do you see education anywhere in that paragraph? I don’t. Now compare the Health Care issue page (t pages of updates) on her congressional website with the Education issue page (two pages of updates). Which one looks like it’s been a priority during her time in Washington?

Now, even if Schwartz hasn’t been a leader on education while in Congress, I could understand endorsing her if she had come out with a strong position on education that set her above all of the other candidates. But I don’t see how that’s true either. The union’s release cites the education plan that she recently released that would push to expand access to pre-K and reverse the Corbett budget cuts. Those are certainly good things, but Schwartz expects to take a long time to accomplish either task – she’s clearly not making it a day one priority. Again, looking at her website and Twitter feed, she doesn;t seem to be talking about education very much.

Other candidates have been much more forceful in talking about education. Former environmental protection secretary John Hanger has made multiple tours of the state in a school bus; participated in a hunger strike over Philadelphia budget cuts; has constantly highlighted the poor academic record of cyber charter schools that drain funds from districts; and made reversing the Corbett cuts a centerpiece of his economic plan. State Treasurer Rob McCord has been talking about public education since the second he got into the race last month, and although he has not released a plan he did answer the Keystone Politics questionnaire which goes into detail on education. Former revenue secretary Tom Wolf has highlighted the education issue on his website. To me, any of these three candidates are better choices for a candidate who will emphasize public education in the upcoming campaign and (hopefully the administration to follow.

So what is the Pittsburgh union hoping to achieve with this endorsement? Again, I have no inside knowledge, but I wonder if it’s not along the lines of my second reason. Schwartz is currently the leader in many polls for the primary. By getting on board with her campaign now, perhaps the Pittsburgh union is hoping that they will have some clout if she becomes governor. If that is the reason, I think it is shortsighted politically. Organizations like EMILY’s List backed Schwartz very early. If she wins, those are the groups that will have the most pull. If union support could help push someone like Hanger or McCord into the lead, then those candidates would have much more reason to be supportive once elected. Endorsing a front-runner is a low-risk, low-reward move. Endorsing someone who comes from behind is higher-risk, but high-reward. Given the state of public education in Pennsylvania, I think we need to take some chances and make some bold moves.

Let me make something clear here. I am not attacking Schwartz. If she wins the nomination, I will absolutely support her against Corbett. But in a primary election, you have room to dream a little and push for your ideal candidate, not the one that your party has agreed on. If I were a health care organization or a women’s rights organization, I would probably be breaking down doors to support her campaign. But while I see Schwartz as a decent candidate for education, I don’t see her as a great one. And right now, finding and supporting a great candidate for education should be a priority for every teacher and education advocate in this state.

Pennsylvania Education and Politics Review – Week of 10/06/13

Education continues to simmer as a significant issue in the gubernatorial campaign.

Schwartz gets Pittsburgh teachers union endorsement: The Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers (AFT Local 400) endorsed U.S. Representative Allyson Schwartz for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, citing Schwartz’s plan to restore the education funds cut by Governor Corbett over four years and invest in a plan to expand universal pre-K over ten years.

Candidates comment on lack of nurses, student death in Philadelphia: The death of 12-year-old Laporshia Massey in September due to complications from asthma has gained national attention this week after the Philadelphia City Paper reported that there was no nurse on duty at her school when she reported difficulty breathing. Many Philadelphia schools do not have nurses on duty five days a week, and that situation has been exacerbated by this year’s budget cuts. Massey’s father believes that a trained nurse would have recognized the severity of the situation and worked to get proper medical attention earlier. State Treasurer Rob McCord and former Environmental Protection Secretary John Hanger shared the story on their social media feeds and reiterated their opposition to the education funding cuts. Searches on Twitter, Google, and candidates’ web sites did not turn up comments by any other candidates.

Philadelphia symposium part of funding formula push: The Philadelphia Mayor’s Office and several other organizations partnered to hold a symposium to highlight the effect that Governor Corbett and the legislature’s decision to stop using the funding formula established in 2008 has had on Philadelphia education. Under the formula, experts said, the School District of Philadelphia would have received more than $300 million in additional funding this year, more than enough to eliminate the deficit that resulted in the “Doomsday budget.” Participants described the symposium as an early step in an ongoing campaign to reestablish a funding formula for Pennsylvania and reduce disparities between local districts.

Pennsylvania Education and Politics Review – Week of 9/22/13

Introduction:

Any effort to turn around the funding challenges faced by Philadelphia and other urban districts in Pennsylvania has to include an effort to change the political dynamic in Harrisburg. In an effort to stay informed of the campaigns and other efforts to make that change happen, I am starting a weekly roundup of political news related to public education. There will be a heavy but not exclusive focus on the gubernatorial campaign. As events warrant I will also look at the legislature, legislative campaigns, Congressional activities, and even maneuvering for the 2015 Philadelphia elections. I will try to keep the editorial commenting to a minimum – or more accurately, I will save that for other posts.

With that out of the way, there are two major stories from this week, both related to the governor’s race.

Rob McCord enters race:

State Treasurer Rob McCord officially entered the race for the Democratic nomination for governor. McCord has won statewide election twice and has been making the rounds of the state for months. He is from Montgomery County and went to Lower Merion High School. Upon entering the race he said, “job one for the next governor is to reverse these horrible cuts in education. That’s job one, by any means necessary.”

His campaign website is still rolling out and thin on details.

McCord has answered Keystone Politics’ candidate questionnaire, which leads off with two questions on education. He stated a desire to move away from reliance on local property taxes as a funding source and a need for the state to commit to providing extra funds to districts that need it. He praised former governor Rendell for establishing a funding formula but did not commit to restoring it, instead saying that he wanted to look at all possible methods of ensuring equitable funding.

Allyson Schwartz announces education plans:

Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz spoke about her education plans in a conference call with reporters. She emphasized early education, planning to use existing programs to increase access to full-day kindergarten and pre-k for four-year-olds. These programs would not establish mandatory programs, but provide funding and incentives to get more districts to offer the programs.

Schwartz has criticized Governor Corbett for the cuts to education over the last three years but seems cautious in how she would undo them. She laid out a ten-year deadline for her preschool programs and said that it would take her a full four-year term to restore state education funding to prior levels. She said that the state could afford to put more money into education by redirecting some money from cyber charters and by enacting the severance tax on natural gas extractors that she recently proposed.