The problem with the District’s philanthropic fund for literacy

564686367677841877-the-fund-kickoff.0.386.3264.1632.full

by Lisa Haver

April 12, 2015

Reprinted from the Philadelphia Public School Notebook.

The state takeover of the School District of Philadelphia more than 15 years ago brought a new set of problems, not the least being the failure of the School Reform Commission — and a succession of highly paid superintendents and CEOs — to fulfill its stated purpose of restoring the District’s financial stability.

At the same time, the public’s ability to be heard on these and other issues has been squelched by growing corporate influence, as grants from outside organizations, including the Gates Foundation, the Philadelphia School Partnership, the William Penn Foundation, and others, have come with mandates for school closures, charter expansion, and weakening of some collective bargaining rights such as longstanding seniority protections. The Great Schools Compact Committee, which oversaw distribution of the Gates money, acted as a shadow school board.

The revival of the Fund for the School District of Philadelphia appears to be an extension of that model, in which private money has a growing influence on a public institution. Established in 2003 as a fundraising arm of the District, it later collected private donations to buy out former Superintendent Arlene Ackerman’s contract, although the District ultimately picked up the bill. Its 17-member board is made up of representatives from banking, energy, cable, financial investment, and consulting businesses — and two educators. “Investors” include GlaxoSmithKline, Wells Fargo, and the Barra, Carnegie and Lenfest Foundations.

Executive Director Donna Frisby-Greenwood said in a NewsWorks interview in January that “the Fund is committed to transparency.” But when I called to ask when the next board meeting would be held, Frisby-Greenwood told me “those meetings are private.”

The fund’s website says that the board will be working with Superintendent William Hite to “help set funding priorities … toward the needs of Philadelphia’s public schools to improve educational services and academic achievement.” But it is not the role of a handful of people from one stratum of society to make those decisions. Giving corporations and foundations a larger voice in decisions on education cedes control of the democratic process to those with the highest net worth. The rest of us get three minutes a month at the SRC meeting.

One of the fund’s initiatives is to build “classroom libraries” in the lower grades to promote early literacy. Countless studies show that having a school library with research facilities, staffed by a certified librarian – not just a small collection of books in each classroom – makes significant improvements in student learning.  The fund’s spending priorities, in this case, send the message that our children should settle for a lesser version of a school library instead of the real thing. No one should be setting those kinds of low expectations for our students.

Schools have long been recipients of donations from local businesses, some of whom develop a relationship with the students and faculty.  But having this kind of funding become institutionalized places our children in the role of charity cases, who can only receive a decent education if they have demonstrated their worthiness. The fund’s website may tell us that “the private donations that we contribute to the District do not supplant government monies,” but it does send the message that someone is here to pick up the slack when Harrisburg comes up short year after year.

Wealthy individuals and corporations, and their lobbyists, have significant influence in  Harrisburg. They should use that power to speak in one voice for a permanent fair funding formula so that principals and teachers don’t have to beg for what their schools deserve.

Mayor Kenney, who hosted a $5,000-a-person inaugural party to benefit the fund, should not place his stamp of approval on an organization that shuts out the people he has vowed to represent.  “I trust these folks and know where they stand on the issues and trust them for raising money for them,” he said of the fund’s board. But the public does not know those who staff the fund. The people, as citizens and taxpayers, are the fund for the School District of Philadelphia. That ensures us an equal place at the table when decisions about our children’s futures are made.

Commentary: District’s ‘turnaround’ plan is bad for students

Lisa Haver SRC 1-21-16

The following commentary by APPS member Lisa Haver was printed on April 1, 2016 in the Philadelphia Daily News.

If you read the paper or listen to the news, you probably have some opinions about the issues facing the Philadelphia School District.

You know that Harrisburg’s repeated slashing of education spending and its failure to come up with a fair and permanent funding formula continue to take a toll.

Adding to that problem are questionable district priorities, which have resulted in:

* More than 160 teacher vacancies, leaving at least 5,300 students without a full-time teacher this year.

* The substitute fill rate plummeting from 65 percent to below 40 percent after the School Reform Commission’s vote to outsource jobs.

* Lack of support staff, including counselors and classroom aides, resulting in an increase in serious incidents in many schools.

* Fewer than eight certified school librarians in the entire district.

Also, the physical condition of the buildings themselves, along with the dearth of full-time nurses, has resulted in higher student absenteeism.

The school district, though, has a different take on the situation: The problem is that teachers and principals are in the wrong buildings, and that moving them is the solution.

Last month, Superintendent William Hite announced yet another “turnaround plan” for four more neighborhood schools, the main feature of that plan being the forced transfer of principals and teachers.

Hite has rejected critics’ characterization of his plan as “destabilization,” but recent history shows that it represents only the latest chapter in a pattern of destabilization for all four schools. Consider:

* S. Weir Mitchell in Kingsessing was a K-5 elementary until 2013. When the district closed two nearby schools, Mitchell incorporated those students and added seventh and eighth grades.

Comments to the article can be read at the Inquirer post:
Commentary: District’s ‘turnaround’ plan is bad for students | Philadelphia Inquirer – April 1, 2016

APPS members testimony to the Philadelphia School Reform Commission – March 24, 2017

SRC 3-24-16

 

On March 24th, 2016 the Philadelphia School Reform Commission held a special meeting to vote on its Preliminary Five-year Plan (FY 17-21) and a Lump Sum Statement (FY 16-17)

This is the testimony of members of the Alliance for Philadelphia Public Schools at this meeting.

The two  videos can be viewed here. Testimony is in the order of appearance.

Click on the pictures below to view the videos individually.

 

Lisa Haver SRC 3-24-16

Video of APPS member Lisa Haver testifying at the Philadelphia School Reform Commission meeting – March 24, 2016. She comments on the new budget then presents evidence that Wister Elementary is outperforming any Mastery Charter.

Click here to read the transcript of Lisa’s testimony.

 

Karl Kilimnic SRC 3-24-16

Video of APPS member Karel Kilimnik testifying at the Philadelphia School Reform Commission meeting – March 24, 2016. She corrects a misunderstanding by Commissioner Jimenez of her question at the previous SRC meeting and then asks why the SRC did notpost the proposed 5-year plan before the meeting  which is yet another violation of the Sunshine Act.

Click here to read the transcript of Karel’s testimony

 

Ears on the SRC – March 17, 2016

SRC 3-17-16 #2

Rally and Cry

This SRC meeting was preceded by a rally—sponsored by Parents of Wister, NAACP, PFT, APPS, PCAPS, and Parents United—in front of the school district administration building. Speakers addressed the district’s failure to provide the resources needed for thriving public schools. A large and noisy presence of Mastery supporters on the other side of the steps periodically disrupted the speeches of parents and community members, including the president of the local NAACP. Once inside the auditorium, a vocal contingent of the Mastery supporters occasionally ridiculed and disparaged teachers and parents of Wister, as well as those supporting their fight to keep Wister public.

What is noteworthy about this scenario is that it plays right into the hands of the corporate machine. This strategy of pitting community members against each other serves to secure the power and profit of the few over the democratic voice of all. Parents, students, teachers and community members all want the same thing; a fair, equitable and safe education for our children. Although we want the very same thing we find ourselves divided by a promise that some see as salvation for their child while others know is the handing over the democratic rights of every child. The corporate model promises what we all want for our children but comes with two costly price tags: the continued disinvestment of traditional public schools coupled with an alarming loss of democratic rights.

Speakers

Eight members of APPS provided testimony at this SRC meeting: Diane Payne, Deb Grill, Karel Kilimnik, Carol Heinsdorf, Lisa Haver, Barbara Dowdall, Kristin Luebbert, and Robin Lowry. (To see videos of these presentation or read the transcripts, visit APPS members testimony to the Philadelphia School Reform Commission.) The testimonies called out the SRC and Superintendent Hite for a wide range of dereliction of their duties to safeguard public education.

Click here for the rest of the article.