Lessons from King
Disclosures of backroom politics in the process to turn around Martin Luther King High ignited calls for more transparency.
by Bill Hangley, Jr.
Told that Martin Luther King High's multimillion-dollar charter school deal ran aground on a reef of Philadelphia politics, Jeffrey Henig could only joke: "I'm shocked! Shocked!"
Henig, a professor at Columbia University's Teachers College, specializes in urban education reform. He won't say that cronyism and corruption are inevitable where charters and other "turnaround" models are concerned. But the risk is always there, he said, and the antidote is transparent, accountable governance.
"I always say, you need good government in order to have good privatization," said Henig.
"It's inevitable that there's some kind of tradeoff between a highly structured centralized system, versus a decentralized system that taps into enthusiasm and new ideas. If you decentralize, and you've got more omelets in the making, it's almost inevitable that some are going to be bad eggs."
There is no more obvious bad egg among Philadelphia's school turnaround projects than King. Most of Philadelphia's charter school conversions have been completed without major controversy. And while many suspect that local politics heavily influenced turnaround decisions at some schools, such as West Philadelphia and Audenried High, only at King have so many details of backroom politicking broken out into the open.
The result has been a slowly unfolding controversy that left King itself scrambling to recover and helped undermine public confidence in the leadership of the School District.
But King's story also reveals one of the benefits of an open, public process. Had parents and community members not been so closely involved in choosing a new provider, Philadelphians might never have learned about the behind-the-scenes battle for the school's valuable contract.
"Even if you've got a well-functioning and capable bureaucracy with integrity," said Henig, "it helps to have more eyes on the ground."
King's charter was no small prize: a five-year deal worth an estimated $12 million a year that could have extended indefinitely. The 1,000-student school in East Germantown was designated for charter conversion last year as part of now-departed superintendent Arlene Ackerman's Renaissance turnaround process. If all had gone according to plan, King would be a charter today.
Instead it remains in District hands, undergoing changes as a Promise Academy. What started as an orderly public process designed to involve the community broke down completely after a powerful local politician stepped in at the last minute to try to steer King's contract to a favored provider.
That kind of thing should surprise no one, said Kent McGuire, former head of the College of Education at Temple University.
"Why would we think that we wouldn't have the same problems with charters as with any other set of large-scale contracting procedures?" asked McGuire, now head of the Southern Education Foundation.
"That's why transparency is so important. That's why we want processes conducted in the sunlight."
But shedding that light is not always easy. It's been six months since news first broke of State Rep. Dwight Evans' backroom attempts to ensure that King's charter would go to his longtime associates at Foundations, Inc. The story is still unfolding today.
"Right now, we're at a point of frustration because there's so many pieces to this puzzle that still don't make sense," said Conchevia Washington, parent of a King student.
"We just want to know what happened and why. How did we get to that point where politicians felt the need to stop a process that had followed all the rules? And that left us with this unclear future?"
Washington, chair of King's volunteer School Advisory Council (SAC), was a key player in the public process. She was stunned to find herself part of a tensely political backroom drama.