Reinventing schools as community institutions
by thenotebook on Mar 11 2013 Posted in Commentary
by Solomon Jones
The sight of children lamenting the School Reform Commission’s decision to close 23 schools was heart-wrenching. And although I feel for those students, I’m convinced that the decision to close some of Philadelphia’s schools is the right one, because a school district with 70,000 empty seats is unsustainable.
Still, I understand the angst of those who live in the affected communities, because the city has spent decades earning their mistrust. When Blacks from states like South Carolina moved to Philadelphia in the 1940s, racial attacks and employment discrimination were followed by White flight and disinvestment. The unease of the '50s and '60s preceded police abuses under Frank Rizzo, and when drugs poured into poor communities like Kensington in the 1980s -- destroying lives regardless of race -- increased violent crime and mass imprisonment ensued. We have yet to recover.
Today, with neighborhoods like Francisville, Northern Liberties, Point Breeze and others on the upswing, the impoverished are being pushed out in favor of well-heeled newcomers, and new property tax assessments could accelerate that process.
Comments (10)
Submitted by Timothy Boyle on Mon, 03/11/2013 - 15:48.
We presented this idea to the SRC, (page 26-27) though instead of turning closed schools into community hubs, there would still be a functioning school in addition to more community resources. The SRC did not take us up on this idea.
Submitted by Joe (not verified) on Mon, 03/11/2013 - 16:14.
Big surprise !!! There's no money in that concept for the "reformers."
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 03/11/2013 - 17:41.
This is why they opted to close smith it is in a gentrifying neighborhood. take the school away you take the community also
Submitted by Joe (not verified) on Mon, 03/11/2013 - 20:00.
Bingo--So True !! It has everything to do with business and nothing to do with kids' education. This is corruption of the most unattractive ilk.
Submitted by reformer (not verified) on Tue, 03/12/2013 - 09:37.
government-run recreation programs are as ineffective and inefficient as government-run schools.
Submitted by Ms.Cheng (not verified) on Tue, 03/12/2013 - 10:05.
Yes, I would agree with you on that. We are hoping for a (dare I use the words) private or nonprofit, partnership.
The years have not made me any wiser I guess, but what an opportunity for Philly to promote its strengths: The higher learning institutions, health care giants, arts organizations; all, if not already, are growing their missions of education, and public service. What better way for City Hall to strategically keep the City strong, aligned with the future, and competitive than to invest in such partnerships.
Submitted by John Hill (not verified) on Tue, 03/12/2013 - 10:55.
I just want to say that I've worked in the nonprofit sector for seven years and I don't think public-private partnerships are any kind of longterm answer to the problems created by a massive disinvestment of money from public services like schools. The reality is that with the possible exception of a handful of nonprofits that are really rooted in and funded by the communities they operate in, nonprofits, like businesses are primarily looking out for their bottomline and immediate day-to-day survival. Everywhere that I've worked has taken serving communities seriously, but not as seriously as positioning us to do the kind of marketable, fundable projects that please wealthy foundations and keep everybody in the office employed.
It's true that some government rec programs are inefficient. I've seen them. But there's nothing about a nonprofit that makes it inherently more efficient at delivering programs that serve the public good beyond the fact their direct service employees are generally paid less and have substandard benefits.
It's important to remember, we're not in this crisis because of government inefficiency (although that has certainly hurt things). We're in this crisis because corporations and wealthy people have spent decades pursuing an agenda to eliminate and privatize all public services and social guarantees, because throughout most of my lifetime the state has refused to provide adequate funding to Philadelphia public schools, and because Corbett cares more about building prisons and giving taxbreaks to his benefactors than he does about whether or not kids in Philly live or die--let alone get a decent education.
Submitted by Ms.Cheng (not verified) on Tue, 03/12/2013 - 12:34.
Thanks for your comment. This article is about the community that has just had, or might soon have, a school closed, not necessarily the entire school system. Agreed, no amount of private or nonprofit partnership can replace government funding.
I don't believe the charter schools are part of a deliberate policy to dismantle public education and put families at the mercy of profit seeking entities. Take a closer look at the statistics. The City has lost over 44,000 children ages 5 to 14 in the past 10 years. For the 2010/11 FY, charters had roughly 40,000 seats and the SDP had roughly 70,000 empty seats. If we attribute 44,000 of the 70,000 to families leaving the City, then that leaves 26,000 that would be left to go to the charters. Meaning that charters only took 26,000 from the SDP, the other 14,000 to make up their 40,000 must have come from private/Catholic schools. This is assuming 100% occupancy 10 years ago in the SDP, which is an overestimate. A lower occupancy would mean that the charters actually took less than 26,000 seats from the SDP and more from the private schools to arrive at their 40,000 seat occupancy. Even if there were no charters, the perception of poor quality of education in the SDP would have driven the enrollment down. Those 26,000 or less, likely even less if there were no magnet schools, seats restored to the SDP would not relieve it of the need to downsize.
In partnerships, having more than one manager, each affiliated with a different organization can make a system more accountable/honest. There has been far too much misappropriated government funding whether in the SDP or some charters.
What nonprofits do best is leveraging and building community relationships. Yes, they also provide jobs, but, as you say they are not generally competitive in terms of wages and benefits (that is, the true nonprofits anyway). There has to be some government/collective investment in order to make a partnership/community school work. Nonprofits would not likely have the funds for the capital investment/re-fitting of facilities that would be required. Is it too farfetched to imagine that there could be coordination and collaboration amongst the nonprofits, the SDP included? Again, to build an interim entity in former school buildings that could strengthen neighborhoods, till a return of numbers of school children could once again purpose the building as a school.
Submitted by Ms.Cheng (not verified) on Tue, 03/12/2013 - 12:41.
Correction: the City has lost over 44,000 children ages 5 to 14 from 2000 to 2010 (U.S. Census), not 2003 to 2013 (past 10 years). Apologies on inaccurate wording.
Submitted by reformer (not verified) on Tue, 03/12/2013 - 12:00.
I'm with you on your assessment of the nonprofit-foundation relationships. the big foundation money comes with lots of strings. I do feel that i did my best work in nonprofits that were tight on money. too many nonprofits hurt themselves when they move from inspiration to institution and forget the financial discipline that austerity demanded. therefore i didn't mean that being a nonprofit is inherently better. but you're all wrong on why public education is costly and ineffective. you, and lots of others, point to the connection of bad schools and prisons as a reason to invest in public education. while I also agree in theory, nobody ever makes the point that the three years of ackerman were the fattest days of district funding in the city's history. the pipeline to prison didn't slow down at any point during that time. the simple fact is that lean and mean works best no matter what business you're in. when your business depends on taxpayer or philanthropic money, lean and mean is even more paramount. the cost of resurrecting these buildings may kill this idea in its tracks. but a bulging budget for recreation and social services is just as unproductive. it would be best to be deliberate in the pursuit of such projects. or they'll be closing with the same accramony that we're hearing about schools.
Post new comment