A reckless proposal
A central component of the restructuring plan now under consideration by the SRC is to further gut the District's already downsized central office and manage schools through a set of autonomous "achievement networks" – all somehow coordinated by a skeleton crew downtown.
No argument that the District needs to move away from a command-style structure. But this plan more or less gives up on the idea of a central office altogether.
Chief Recovery Officer Thomas Knudsen and his hired guns from the Boston Consulting Group propose replacing it with a system that has never been tried in any other urban district. New York City has tried matching schools with support organizations – but as a supplement to the central office, not a replacement.
This reorganization plan was cooked up in a few weeks, and it shows. Details on how these achievement networks would operate are scanty. Still, Knudsen is eager to issue a request for proposals to operate a pilot network.
It's fashionable to say that things are so bad that they couldn't get worse – so why not just blow up the central office and see if the consultants' ideas about networks are any better? But that is reckless thinking.
In fact, one of the vital roles of a central office is to ensure equity and accountability. We know that in other districts like New Orleans that have radically decentralized, the results for the most vulnerable, such as students with disabilities, have been disastrous. Why this proposed system would better address the needs of the hardest-to-serve students is unclear.
And the restructuring won't save money – it's not an answer to the current crisis. It appears to be driven by ideology, not practicalities. Why else would anyone think that a horrific budget deficit requiring 64 school closings is a good time to also take apart and redesign the District's entire organizational structure? Knudsen and his consultants should take this half-baked proposal off the table.
Comments (2)
Submitted by ourcityourschools on Thu, 08/09/2012 - 10:13.
While complete decentralizaiton isn't the answer, School Advisory Councils may be a component of a more sustainable plan. Such councils, composed of parents, students, community members and school staff, would allow for schools to have more autonomy while still serving the needs of the community. A resolution supporting SACs is up for debate by the School District on August 16th.
Submitted by Rich Migliore (not verified) on Thu, 08/09/2012 - 19:33.
SACs are another version of school councils. But the concept of school councils which was initiated in the late 1990's and early 2,000's around the country and in Philadelphia included teachers, parents, local community members, and in high schools, students.
Why are the SACS exclusive of teachers? Is that inclusive leadership and governance Philly style?
Many school councils throughout the country had actual leadership authority. I had a great experience as the Chairman of one of our nation's first "Governance Councils" in the early 1990's at University City H.S.
What Pew promoted was "shared decision-making." They provided consultants, facilitators and money. They even paid for two whole school retreats at Eagle Lodge. We, as a school community, developed a collaborative educational plan for the whole school.
Pew did not ask for one red cent in return and they never had a quid pro quo for anything they funded.
What they advocated as the "best practice" in leadership and governance was collegiality and collaboration. They said that was how the private sector did it and that is how they created organizational synergy.
Post new comment