Walking the Walk is a six part series that will analyze the ways in which Mayor Nutter can implement his plan for public education. With the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers opening contract negotiations with the School District of Philadelphia, now is the time for the mayor to make good on his campaign promises and truly “put children first”. He can do so by working with Sandra Dungee-Glenn and the School Reform Commission to build a contract that will give teachers the resources needed to provide our city’s children with a first rate education.

“As Mayor, I will call for a reduction in contracts with outside contractors unless there is a compelling educational purpose for renewing the contract.”

--Michael Nutter, Putting Children First

Cassandra W. Jones, the Philadelphia School District's interim chief academic officer, recently recommended overhauling 70 of the district’s lowest-performing schools by bringing in outside management. Although EMOs (educational management organizations) such as Edison Schools, Foundations Inc., Victory Schools, Universal Companies, Temple University and University of Pennsylvania have produced mixed results, the district is still considering investing millions of dollars in them.

This is yet another situation where Mayor Nutter can implement his plan for public education and truly “put children first”. He can make good on his campaign promise to “call for a reduction in contracts with outside contractors unless there is a compelling educational purpose for renewing the contract.” Is there “a compelling educational purpose” for contracting out more of our public schools?

According to a story run last year in The Bulletin, the answer would be no: “The RAND Corporation, a national research organization, and Research for Action, a Philadelphia-based non profit organization working in educational research and reform, released a study assessing student achievement here. It concluded in a single italicized sentence, In sum, with four years of data, we find little evidence in terms of academic outcomes that would support the additional resources for the private managers. To put it more simply, the EMOs receive an additional $18 million per year, approximately $768 more per pupil, to run their schools with no measurable difference in test results.”

You would think the conclusions drawn by RAND and Research for Action would be enough for the SRC to pull the plug on EMOs once and for all. Yet, with outside contractors producing no significant academic gains, the district continues to award them lucrative contracts. The question in my mind is WHY? Is the SRC so isolated in their corporate world that they can’t—to use a cliché—see the forest through the trees? Are they too stubborn? Gullible? Naive?

In my opinion, the school district continues to consider EMOs because they do not have a grasp of what is truly wrong with education in the city of Philadelphia. They still fail to see that a student’s HOME ENVIRONMENT means more than the length of the school day, the rigor of the curriculum, the training of the staff. And how have EMOs improved the HOME ENVIRONMENT of their students? How have they stabilized neighborhoods and brought safety into the community? How have they helped non-English speaking parents speak English to help with their child’s homework? How have they solved addiction problems? Employment problems? Anger management problems? How have they stopped the “no-snitch” mentality? How have they made education a priority in every home in Philadelphia?

The answer is, they haven’t! As research shows, these outside contractors can do a lot of shuffling and restructuring of staff, curriculum, and resources (at exorbitant prices), but when the smoke clears, our children aren’t any better off then before; in fact, they are worse off, because we’ve taken money out of the system and wasted it on unwise educational experiments.

It’s insulting to me as a teacher that the school district feels it must bring in outside management to properly educate our children when the problem lies so far outside the classroom. The district needs to take all the money they are spending on EMOs and reinvest it in programs to help struggling parents and neighborhoods gain some stability. They need to take this money and invest it in a LARGER TEACHING STAFF to lower class sizes, and use it to update technology and classroom materials. To give our children a skill and a life purpose.

As Mayor Nutter announced in his education plan outside Samuel Powel School last fall, “We know that contracting out to the education management organizations—the EMOs—are not producing results . . . that are any better then many of our regular public schools. So instead of allowing consultants to profit, we should return some of the consultant money to the classroom.”

Amen. Now let’s hope Mayor Nutter will use his political influence to persuade the school district to stop doing business with outside contractors.

Walking the Walk is a six part series that will analyze the ways in which Mayor Nutter can implement his plan for public education. With the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers opening contract negotiations with the School District of Philadelphia, now is the time for the mayor to make good on his campaign promises and truly “put children first”. He can do so by working with Sandra Dungee-Glenn and the School Reform Commission to build a contract that will give teachers the resources needed to provide our city’s children with a first rate education.

“As Mayor, I will direct my appointees to the SRC to clarify budget priorities and eliminate administrative costs in order to put money back into the classroom. . . . Some of the ideas that I will explore include: Limiting the role of the School District’s Central Administration to functions that create economies of scale, and directing as many Central Administration personnel as possible back into the schools to serve as teachers or principals.”

--Michael Nutter, Putting Children First

Last month, Allyssa Schmitt, principal of Thomas Mifflin Elementary, resigned because of accusations that she said Muslim children looked like “flying nuns”. Whether or not Schmitt is guilty of discrimination remains the subject of an investigation. However, the interesting part of the story is that during the controversy, district officials said Schmitt was—and I quote the Inquirer—“weighing whether to take a job in the central office or move to another principal’s post.”

It’s curious how a job in the district’s central office happened to pop up just as Allyssa Schmitt planned to step down as principal. It’s also interesting that the school district would pay Schmitt to perform this office job when the budget is so tight to begin with. Couldn’t the district’s money be better spent? Couldn’t we use Schmitt’s proposed “central office” salary to open a new library in a North Philly elementary school, or pay an ESL teacher to help students in West Kensington neighborhoods speak English?

The district is overblown with positions that lure educators (and money) out of the classroom. Think of all the former principals and teachers who now serve as district officers; or regional superintendents; or administrative assistants to regional superintendents; or writers of district curriculum; or administrative assistants to writers of district curriculum; or school growth teachers; or academic coaches. The list goes on and on.

Cassandra W. Jones, Interim Chief Academic Officer of the Philadelphia School District (and former teacher), is a case in point. The Inquirer reported that Jones receives an annual pension of $36,900 in addition to her yearly salary of $231,394. Incredible. And how about Lori Shorr and Sharon Tucker, Mayor Nutter’s “dynamic duo” of education? Although the two women never worked in the classroom, their salaries are still exorbitant. Shorr, as Nutter’s new Chief Education Officer, will be making $115,000 a year, while Tucker, acting as Shorr’s deputy, will be pulling in $95,000; at 30 years old, Sharon Tucker will be making $15,000 more than the highest paid, most experienced teacher in the Philadelphia School District.

This is exactly where Mayor Nutter should start putting children first—by funneling money and resources back into the classroom where they belong. He must sit down with the SRC and tighten the screws. He must follow through with his promise to do an independent audit of the district’s finances, to determine, as he states in Putting Children First, “whether the School District’s funds are being well spent.” He must make the budget more transparent to the city’s tax payers, so we can see exactly how our dollars are being spent. Then, as citizens of Philadelphia, we can give the SRC and the district’s central office a “report card,” just as the press so callously gives our region’s teachers and principals.

If Mayor Nutter truly wants to achieve the goals set forth in Putting Children First, he must set the tone early. He must become an active part of the contract negotiations between the Philadelphia School District and the teacher’s union. He must remind Sandra Dungee-Glenn and the SRC that the district’s recent financial deficit has already resulted in the cutting of badly needed resources—such as libraries, sports programs and other after school activities—and that if money becomes an issue during contract negotiations (which it undoubtedly will), the cuts must be made primarily on the administrative side, away from the classrooms and the teachers who run them.

But I have faith in Mayor Nutter. Which is why—as a dues paying member of the PFT—I voted to endorse him during the 2007 general election. I also have faith in Jerry Jordan, our union president, and the entire Collective Bargaining Team. Our union will stand strong and convey the message to Nutter that he mustn’t become a liability like former Philadelphia mayor John Street and make us work with a sub-standard contract or no contract at all. I have full confidence that PFT President Jerry Jordan and the CB Team will start putting the wheels in motion NOW—in the month of February—to open the lines of communication with Mayor Nutter so he can fulfill the promises he made when we voted to endorse him last fall.

Public education can work in Philadelphia. By cutting the dead wood in the district’s central office, the SRC can free funds to build a new and improved teachers’ contract, and bring about the needed changes to truly put our children’s education first.

Ten years ago, when I first began teaching in the Philadelphia School District, I asked my department head to order a class set of The Autobiography of Malcolm X so I could use it with my English classes. Without hesitating, she gave me the following advice: Stay away from Malcolm X. When I asked her why, she told me he was too difficult a subject, and that if I wanted to do an autobiography of an important African American, I should instead try Gifted Hands, the remarkable story of neurosurgeon Ben Carson.

Although I never taught Gifted Hands, I stayed away from Malcolm X. I knew from studying him in college that his autobiography was filled with challenging subject matter, and as a white teacher educating a multi-racial class of students, I didn’t want to butcher the material; I was afraid of sounding either too bleeding-heart or too insensitive.

As time passed, however, and I gained confidence in the classroom, my fascination with Malcolm X took hold once again; it wasn’t long before I began experimenting with his autobiography in class—teaching it in bits and pieces—tinkering with lessons in a trial-and-error sort of way.

Today I have enough familiarity with his autobiography that I teach it from start to finish—from the Forward by Malcolm’s daughter Attallah Shabazz to the Epilogue by Alex Haley. Because I believe Malcolm’s life story is as inspiring to white students as it is to black ones—I’m sharing five tips I’ve learned to better teach Malcolm X to a 21st century, multicultural class of high school students.

According to a recent PA Department of Education study entitled “Costing-Out the Resources Needed to Meet Pennsylvania’s Public Education Goals,” Philadelphia public schools—as well as 95% of the state’s 501 school districts—are under funded. The report estimated that it would take $14,131 per pupil to bring every student in Philadelphia up to proficient on state reading and math tests by 2014. Currently, Philadelphia students only receive $9,947 each; they fall short of the recommended spending formula by $4,184.

But will an increase in funding produce the kind of results the “costing-out” report indicates?

Last fall, US NEWS & WORLD REPORT released its annual “America's Best High Schools” list. Philadelphia’s Julia R. Masterman and Chester County’s Conestoga made the top 100. On the honorable mention list were Philadelphia’s Bodine, Central, Carver, and Girls (all special admission schools), as well as Montgomery County’s Lower Merion and Bucks County’s CB East and Bristol high schools.

Of the nine area schools on the list, seven are under funded. Masterman, Bodine, Central, Carver, and Girls are under funded by $4,184 per student. CB East (which spends $8,915 per student) is under funded by $1,486, and Bristol (which spends $11,949 per child) is short on district spending by $2,096.

So what’s the deal? How can some schools perform at high levels with low funds, while others continue to struggle? How does CB East out perform 62 of Philadelphia’s 67 high schools when CB East spends over $1,000 less per student than Philadelphia? Why do Philadelphia’s state test scores continue to lag behind those of their under funded suburban counterparts?

In my opinion, the answer has more to do with community than it does with spending. According to a 2006 survey by the US Census Bureau, 1 in 2 families in Philadelphia are headed by a single parent; 1 in 4 Philadelphians don’t have a high school diploma; 1 in 5 speak a language other than English in their home; 1 in 9 are unemployed; and 1 in 17 aren’t even a US citizen.

When it comes to parenting, education, employment, citizenship and the English language, how does Philadelphia fair in comparison to the suburbs?

Here’s a quick breakdown:

BUCKS COUNTY:
Families headed by two parents: 82.5%
Residents with High School Diploma: 90.7%
Residents with Bachelor’s Degree: 35.2%
Residents Who Speak a Language Other Than English: 9.8%
Unemployment Rate: 4.3%
Residents Who Are Not a US Citizen: 3.5%

CHESTER COUNTY:
Families headed by two parents: 83.5%
Residents with High School Diploma: 91.6%
Residents with Bachelor’s Degree: 45%
Residents Who Speak a Language Other Than English: 9.5%
Unemployment Rate: 4.1%
Residents Who Are Not a US Citizen: 4.3%

MONTGOMERY COUNTY:
Families headed by two parents: 80%
Residents with High School Diploma: 92.2%
Residents with Bachelor’s Degree: 43.4%
Residents Who Speak a Language Other Than English: 10.5%
Unemployment Rate: 3.9%
Residents Who Are Not a US Citizen: 3.7%

PHILADELPHIA:
Families headed by two parents: 51.8%
Residents with High School Diploma: 77.5%
Residents with Bachelor’s Degree: 20.7%
Residents Who Speak a Language Other Than English: 19.8%
Unemployment Rate: 12.4%
Residents Who Are Not a US Citizen: 6.3%

These statistics are eye-opening indeed. They paint a lot clearer picture of the realities of our students’ lives then district spending. Philadelphia’s education advocates should continue to lobby law makers to increase state funding, but they must also rally to get Philadelphians to make better choices with their lives.

Education does not take place in a vacuum. Our city’s school system is only as strong as the community that supports it.

With Temple University dean Kent McGuire dropping out of the running, Arlene Ackerman and Leroy D. Nunery II are the two finalists for the top job in the Philadelphia School District. Although a 45-member citizens advisory chose Ackerman and Nunery from 37 applicants, Governor Rendell and School Reform Commission Chairwoman Sandra Dungee-Glenn have made it clear that the search will remain open until the district has a capable CEO.

Here are some pros and cons of the two finalists: