Menu
Paid Advertisement
view counter

Facilities policies vote postponed till June

By Benjamin Herold on May 19, 2011 02:00 PM

A parent spoke, and the School Reform Commission listened.

In an unusual, instantaneous response to public testimony, the SRC voted Wednesday to table until June decisions about the District’s new proposed Adaptive Reuse and Rightsizing policies regarding the closing of schools and the disposal of vacated properties. 

The postponement came after parent activist Cecelia Thompson pleaded with the SRC to give parents and community members more time to digest  recent revisions to the proposed procedures.

“It is us, the families, who have to live with these decisions. It is best that we be given the respect that we deserve and [get] to see the changes before you take your final vote,” said Thompson. “The SRC can vote on these resolutions at the June planning meeting.”

Saying Thompson’s comments “struck a chord,” Commissioner Joseph Dworetzky proposed a motion to honor her request, and the rest of the commissioners agreed.

A lengthy public discussion of the complex policies – key components of the District’s facilities master planning process – followed. With the District intending to close and list for sale up to 50 buildings, the way it is done will likely have huge implications for communities across the city.

The current draft of the proposed Adaptive Reuse Policy, for example, outlines three potential types of reuse for a given building: educational, public/community, or private. As it currently stands, District staff would retain the right to determine the type of reuse for each shuttered building – whether a closed school gets converted to condominiums, a park, or a charter school, for example.

Dworetzky called for the policy to include more information on how the type of proposed reuse, or “tier,” will be decided.

“We should be saying in here who’s going to decide that, and when it will be decided,” said Dworetzky.

SRC Chairman Robert Archie, meanwhile, asked for clarification on a provision in the proposed policy that says charter operators can be designated “educational users” – and thus be eligible to purchase buildings at prices that are potentially lower than fair market value – only if they agree “not to seek additional seats.”

With several charter operators currently suing the District over what it claims are illegal caps on student enrollment, the question of the District’s ability to manage charter school growth has become a hot-button issue.

After some discussion, there was general agreement among the commissioners and Deputy for Strategic Initiatives Danielle Floyd on the intent of the policy. They said a charter operator bidding on a building should be neither guaranteed additional seats as part of their proposal nor precluded from applying for additional seats under the established protocol for charter modifications. 

It was unclear, however, how the policy would treat charter operators who wish to bid on buildings but choose to disregard the District’s current protocol for expanding enrollment.

Archie also called for the District to specify clear bylaws and conflict of interest policies for those serving on teams that will be asked to vet proposals and recommend to the District a preferred buyer for each building listed for sale.

In response to a question from Commissioner Denise McGregor Armbrister, Floyd said the expected time commitment for those who will serve on the evaluation teams could range from a “couple months” to much longer, depending in part on how many proposals the District receives for a given property.

“It is a little difficult to predict, because we just don’t know what the demand [for buildings] will be moving forward,” said Floyd. 

After the meeting, parent activist Thompson said she was pleased with the postponement and ensuing discussion.

“I basically want to know who’s making the decisions [about the eventual reuses of closed schools],” said Thompson. “We don’t want someone who doesn’t understand the community to come in there and make decisions for us.”

A regular at SRC meetings, Thompson also expressed surprise and gratitude that the commissioners had responded to her request.

“Usually, I just come to these things to make a point,” said Thompson. “I didn’t actually think they would do anything.”

This story is a product of a reporting partnership on the facilities master plan between the Notebook and PlanPhilly.

Click here
view counter

Comments (6)

Submitted by Timothy Boyle on May 19, 2011 5:05 pm

 So what do communities do with this time? Surely developers, CMOs, and non-profits will be lobbying to get what they want out of the "Reuse" policy.

Do we start to organize FACs (facilities advisory groups) around schools that are already closed or we think will be closed? 

Do we draft community facilities master plans on the regional basis the SDP has created?

Do we contact State Rep.Louise Williams Bishop and find out how to support HB 1517 because we are tired of an unelected group making decisions about our schools?

Submitted by Just Sayin' (not verified) on May 19, 2011 8:02 pm

I looked up HB 1517, but I don't understand what is being amended. What is a "District of the First Class"?

Submitted by Veteran of WPHS "Renaissance" (not verified) on May 19, 2011 11:23 pm

That is Philadelphia -- the bill taking over the district was written specifically for Philadelphia.

Submitted by Teacher (K.R. Luebbert) (not verified) on May 19, 2011 11:45 pm

I believe it has to do with size, Philly is the only one in the Commonwealth--that is part of what makes this law unconstitutional--I believe.

Submitted by Audax (not verified) on May 19, 2011 9:58 pm

Archie is suggesting there be clear policies about "conflicts of interest." That's hilarious. Comedic genius!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on May 19, 2011 11:55 pm

I can't believe the SRC postponed this. This whole process is rediculous. I have been to all 3 phases and its a farce. The first was a wish list of what you would want,need,desire in your "dream school". By the 3rd phase we were supposed to have specific school information about closings,etc. At the northeast meeting all we got was "its gonna be delayed cause of the budget so we need more community meetings in the fall and spring, and in 2 years we will start more closings" GREAT, so if you have a decison to make about highschool, or to start a younger child in an elementary school how do you do that if they won't give you an idea of what specific schools they are looking at. And how long does the community have input for? If they outline where they are looking to close then those specific communities can figure out where to send their children.

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

Print edition

Recent Comments

Click Here
view counter
Click Here - Paid Ad
view counter
Click Here
view counter
Universal Family of School is Recruiting Talented Teachers
view counter

view counter
Click Here
view counter
Keystone State Education Coalition
view counter
Click Here
view counter
Click here
view counter
Advertise with TheNotebook.org
view counter
Click Here
view counter
Reserve your ad in the next edition of The Notebook
view counter
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