Menu
Paid Advertisement
view counter

The case for an elected school board

By Ron Whitehorne on Mar 30, 2011 05:14 PM

Sign at TAG protest at School District headquarters.

This is the second in a three-part series about governance of the Philadelphia schools.

Today, Philadelphia's schools are governed by a state commission with a majority selected by the governor in Harrisburg. Ten years ago we had a school board appointed by the mayor and nominated by a panel of civic notables, who were selected by the mayor based on criteria enumerated in the city’s charter. In both cases, Philadelphia's citizens did not select the people responsible for the city's public school system.

While the school board had broad oversight for District policy and administration, it lacked the power to appropriate funds. Then, as now, Philadelphia City Council controls the purse strings, deciding on both property tax rates and the share of revenue that will go to the schools. The District depends on the city for about 40 percent of its budget, leaving it dependent on state and federal funds to make up the difference.

Over the years, the school board had its share of strong leaders and advocates, but membership was largely drawn from the city’s elites and community-based activists were under-represented. While the board was grounded in local politics, the absence of elections limited accountability and meant that there was no broad forum for debating education issues.

Defenders of an appointed board often argue that elections would be dominated by ward leaders and party organization and would degrade the quality of school leadership. Some have also argued that elections carry the risk of increasing racial and ethnic polarization. The public schools are disproportionately attended by children of color, but the city’s White property owners tend to be more interested in keeping taxes down. 

These arguments are characteristic of an anti-democratic bent that is quick to substitute the authority of elites for the decisions of ordinary people. The same arguments cited above could be used to justify an appointed city council. Democracy rests on two premises:

  1. People have right to control their own political destiny.
  2. In the long run, a democratic form of government is likely to lead to the happiest results when compared to alternatives. 

Granted, an elected school board is no panacea. Without a broad-based, well-informed movement for quality public education it is unlikely that we will see positive change regardless of what form of governance we have.

The question, as I see it, is what system would provide the best context for building and sustaining such a movement? Instead of simply petitioning the SRC, or in past years, the school board to address our many issues, we could take our case directly to the voters, building support for positive reforms, educating the public, and, ultimately, electing supportive candidates.

Changes in governance are almost always propelled by popular dissatisfaction with the substance of what government does and less by its form. If the British had avoided imposing onerous and excessive taxation on its American colonies, we might all be singing "God Save the Queen" instead of "The Star-Spangled Banner."

In Philadelphia, the last time the city’s charter was a focus of major controversy was in 1978 when then-Mayor Frank Rizzo tried to change it to gain a third term.

The electorate, by a two to one margin, shot him down not because of some abstract attachment to term limits, but because of deep-seated opposition to his regime of repression and racial polarization. The broad-based movement that emerged from the charter change struggle changed the city’s political landscape, among other things, paving the way for the election of the city's first African-American mayor.

If a movement for altering the way schools are governed is to gain traction it has to be able to connect with longstanding grievances about our schools and link them with a reform program. Few will be drawn to an abstract debate about the virtues of an elected versus an appointed board or state versus local control.

Another concern cited about returning to the schools to local control is, particularly given our dependence on state funding, state oversight is critical to insure fiscal responsibility. Yet with the SRC in place and absolute state control there was a major budget deficit in the last year of the Vallas era and, according to some critics, poor fiscal management of stimulus money contributing the tsunami proportions of next year’s budget deficit. So, clearly, state control doesn’t equal fiscal discipline. Nor would local control prevent the state from auditing spending. As long as city schools are dependent on state funding, the state retains substantial leverage.

Attention needs to be given to the form an elected board would take, much of which is prescribed by state law.

  • Should seats be elected at-large, by neighborhood, or by some combination of the two?
  • When and how often should the elections occur?
  • Should the elections be non-partisan?
  • What should the ballot requirements be? 

How these questions are answered has bearing on what kind of board and process develop.

In the next installment, I'll suggest a road map of how to establish an elected school board in Philadelphia.

Comments (10)

Submitted by Bobbie Cratchit (not verified) on March 30, 2011 6:36 pm

There is a case for an elected school board. I, for one, would like to have a say in the process. In addition, there is something to be said for the pressure an "elected" board member feels from constituents when he/she is voting. If there is pressure to vote with the "voting" public (the people who gave you the job) rather than rubber stamp whatever the Superintendent wants, we would be able to curtail the "It's my way or the highway" attitude that prevails today. It is not a perfect system but it is a system that would be "For the People and By the People". I nominate Ron for School Board president!

Submitted by Ron Whitehorne on March 30, 2011 8:44 pm

 Thanks Bobbie.   I just hope I'll still be alive to accept the nomination.

 

Submitted by Bobbie Cratchit (not verified) on March 30, 2011 6:36 pm

There is a case for an elected school board. I, for one, would like to have a say in the process. In addition, there is something to be said for the pressure an "elected" board member feels from constituents when he/she is voting. If there is pressure to vote with the "voting" public (the people who gave you the job) rather than rubber stamp whatever the Superintendent wants, we would be able to curtail the "It's my way or the highway" attitude that prevails today. It is not a perfect system but it is a system that would be "For the People and By the People". I nominate Ron for School Board president!

Submitted by Teacher (K.R. Luebbert) (not verified) on March 30, 2011 7:54 pm

I, too, think we should have an elected school-board. The whole SRC, rich lawyer, businessman, non-educator, IS NOT WORKING! How about a non-partisan election of candidates from all stakeholder groups: teacher, administrator, citizen, parent, community? I am not sure how we would do this, but it is worth discussing.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on March 30, 2011 10:40 pm

Try Dwight Evans, Bob Archie, & Arlene Ackerman. Who do you think controls the school district? Those people are the ones that need to go!!!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on March 30, 2011 8:36 pm

Would it be possible to have a "No confidence" vote in some form for Ackerman? What if the entire workforce had the ability to make a no confidence vote against Ackerman? Can someone set up a Facebook page..."Ackerman...No Confidence Vote?"

Maybe a bit crazy, but nothing else seems to make this woman budge.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on March 31, 2011 8:41 pm

We saw this coming with the arrival of the Chicago crowd,and look what it's come to? I have family in another state who have said: "we voted down vouchers". How much input does the public have HERE, given that there is serious talk about using our public money for private and religious schools? It's absurd that we should even be entertaining the notion.

There is no US with this current setup, and things are being done TO us, not with us.

Submitted by maria (not verified) on June 4, 2014 5:47 am
I fully support these claims. Democracy should be a reality here too. It would be the best things. No one knows better what the people of a city or state need than the actual people living there. despre asigurari
Submitted by ionela (not verified) on June 6, 2014 9:56 am
This makes a lot of sense....I don't know why it doesn't make sense to everyone. I think the only reason why this is not a reality is because some people are still concerned with their own agenda. jocuri noi
Submitted by mirica (not verified) on June 9, 2014 5:20 am
I'm sure people would be happier with a system like this and the arguments would be fewer. I don't see any reason not to adopt a democratic system here. web design

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. We reserve the right to delete or remove any material deemed to be in violation of this rule, and to ban anyone who violates this rule. Please see our "Terms of Usage" for more detail concerning your obligations as a user of this service. Reader comments are limited to 500 words. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

Follow Us On

          

Philly Ed Feed

Stopping Summer Slide

 

Recent Comments

Top

Public School Notebook

699 Ranstead St.
Third Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: (215) 839-0082
Fax: (215) 238-2300
notebook@thenotebook.org

© Copyright 2013 The Philadelphia Public School Notebook. All Rights Reserved.
Terms of Usage and Privacy Policy