Understanding the state takeover of Philadelphia's schools

Analysis: do Philadelphians still have a voice at the School District?

by Len Rieser

Photo: Phil. Federation of Teachers

Faced with widespread public protest, the School Reform Commission ended up with a privatization program that is much less sweeping than state officials had envisioned.

On December 23, 2001, Philadelphians awoke to the startling news that their schools were now -- as the Philadelphia Inquirer put it -- "the property and problem of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania."

The transfer of control, which was reported to have occurred at precisely 12:01 a.m., seemed to plunge the city's children into uncertainty. "We're in [Governor] Schweiker's hands now," a Daily News columnist wrote, with evident apprehension.

So what does it all mean? Eighteen months later, the Commonwealth does not seem especially involved in District affairs. There is little evidence that Harrisburg views the Philadelphia schools as its "property" -- or its problem. Most of the decision-making seems to be occurring where it always did: in the School District administration building at 21st and the Parkway.

Did the takeover, one might ask, really happen?

The answer is easy. It did, and it's still in effect. But the question of what the takeover will mean for Philadelphia children isn't as simple.

That's because the takeover law, while drastic, has also turned out to have some flexibility. And city residents have found that, when there is a grass roots protest or pressure is applied, even points that seemed to be certainties may be open to negotiation.

A less drastic shift

The best-known aspect of the takeover was the transfer of power from school board to School Reform Commission (SRC). Previously, the mayor appointed the school board, whereas under the state takeover law, the governor was given the power to appoint a decisive majority -- four out of the five members -- of the SRC.

But while that's what the law allowed, it isn't quite what happened. Presumably in response to pressure from Philadelphia, ex-Governor Schweiker agreed to allow the mayor to appoint two SRC members rather than one. Schweiker described the power-sharing arrangement between the state and city as a "full partnership." When one of the mayor's two SRC appointees left this year, newly elected Governor Rendell again allowed Mayor Street to fill it.

While some had feared Schweiker's appointees would be a collection of hostile outsiders unfamiliar with Philadelphia's needs, two Schweiker appointees (as well as both of the mayor's) are Philadelphia residents. The one exception (James Nevels, the chair) is from nearby Swarthmore. Complaints of anti-Philadelphia bias on the part of the SRC have been relatively infrequent.

Still, the majority of the SRC are the former Republican governor's appointees. And they may be there for a long time: two have terms that run until 2008, while the term of the third expires in 2006. Under the law, even Governor Rendell can't replace them before their terms end, unless they resign or commit serious violations.

But might an SRC member resign at some point? And if so, might Governor Rendell consider the wishes of city residents in choosing a replacement? It seems possible that the makeup of the SRC will change as time goes on, and perhaps in ways that lead it toward greater local control.