|
Title:
|
February 14, 2002
The Honorable Anna C. Verna
City Council President
Room 405, City Hall
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Dear President Verna:
As Council prepares to vote today on Bill Nos. 010617 and 010666, as amended, I write
to share my thoughts about the legality and effect of these proposed ordinances.
Let me say first, as local Secretary of Education Debra Kahn testified on behalf of my Administration on January 30, I understand that the intent of these bills is to provide City Council and parents with a meaningful say in the future direction of public education in our City. Together, we recognize and respect the profound stake that parents have in their children's schools and believe that their voices should be heard in important matters, including decisions about engaging private entities to manage schools. The fact is, however, that the legislation under consideration would neither expand Council's authority over the operation of public education, nor guarantee a role for parents in the decision-making process.
The City Solicitor has written an opinion on these amended bills, which I am enclosing for your review. He concludes that because the bills go beyond Council's powers of appropriation and taxation to impose restrictions and regulations on the executive branch and the School Reform Commission (SRC), they are unenforceable.
In addition to the legal problems with these ordinances, however, I am concerned that they create confusion and misperceptions about the new City-State governing partnership for the School District. While the transition is underway, there is understandably a good deal of anxiety about what is to come. Some of this uncertainty is inevitable as the SRC is undertaking a tremendous amount of new work and not every question has an answer yet. But as public officials, I believe that we have a responsibility to provide accurate information and avoid misrepresentations and misleading actions.
For example, Bill No. 010617 seems to suggest that the partnership agreement I negotiated with Governor Schweiker launched the state takeover of the Philadelphia School District by permitting the SRC to supersede the Board of Education. The bill also implies that the agreement authorizes the private management of School District operations and individual schools. In fact, the partnership agreement does not do these things because I would not choose to do them, and because I do not have the authority to take those actions anyway. The SRC was actually installed pursuant to the Pennsylvania School Code, when the Secretary of Education declared our School District to be "financially distressed", effective December 22, 2001. It is also state law (Act 46 as amended) that grants to the SRC the authority to contract for private management of any aspect of the School District.
I know that many parents and other citizens continue to feel strongly that our schools should remain in exclusive local control. I share that preference. But I also ask people to consider that our new arrangement is the best alternative we have at this time to achieve the reforms and progress we all want. The City alone cannot afford to meet the enormous financial challenges confronting the School District, not even to balance the budget let alone to provide the smaller classes, technology, well-trained and supported teachers and other educational supports our children need to succeed. Last summer, knowing that we would not have sufficient cash to complete the current school year, we faced two painful choices: slash school spending to unimaginable levels or allow the Commonwealth to take over the District and fully implement its own plan for our schools, which without a doubt would have been an extremely hostile and disruptive situation. I concluded that the best course for our City was a third option: to negotiate the most favorable terms, the timing and the conditions, under which the inevitable state takeover would occur.
As a result, we have a partnership agreement that assures the City a significant and sustained say in the policies of the School District, offers the prospect of essential new funds while protecting the City treasury by capping our financial commitment, preserves fundamental educational services and provides the opportunity for some stability and academic improvement until we reach the ultimate goal of statewide school funding reform. As I have said before, questions remain to be answered and there will be SRC decisions with which we disagree. But the Governor and I did succeed in creating an arrangement that in my judgment is absolutely in the best interests of the children and families of our City.
If Council passes these bills, I am most disturbed by the fact that public school parents may believe that they actually will be given a vote on privatization contracts for individual schools. Since Council does not have the power to determine the features or requirements of the SRC's contracting procedures, parents should have no such assurance. I believe that it is critical to develop mechanisms for the opinions of parents, students and other community members to be heard as the SRC makes vital decisions, not only regarding school privatization, but also on an ongoing basis. My appointees to the Commission hold this view and I have discussed the subject with Chairman James Nevels as well. We do not need legislation that would mislead parents into thinking that the issue is resolved. Instead, we need Council, parents and other advocates to engage the SRC to ensure that effective vehicles for community input are created and used. I am encouraged that recent statements by Commission members indicate their intent to do so.
My final concern regarding the ordinances under consideration, even though passage would give them no legal effect, is their potential to spawn litigation and thereby cause disruption and delays during a particularly sensitive time for the School District. It is possible that any lawsuits, no matter how weak, that are brought to compel enforcement could jeopardize the deficit funding bond issue planned for the spring, as well as the appropriations we seek in both the General Assembly and City Council.
Rather than add to the confusion and create diversions, I encourage you to join me in attempting to provide clarity and stay focused on key concerns as the SRC goes about its work. For example, there needs to be a level playing field among schools for funding, assessment and accountability no matter who the school providers are. The SRC needs to recognize both school successes and failures, and act on their causes. We need to listen to students, parents, teachers and other stakeholders who know our schools first-hand and who will live with the decisions that are made. We need to be united and vigilant in our advocacy for the only real long-term solution for our schools, statewide funding reform.
I do believe it is important to send a clear message to the SRC that our City government is very concerned that parents and community members have appropriate involvement in school decision-making. If I am not satisfied that the SRC has taken sufficient actions in this direction, I am willing to work with Council to seek appropriate legislative authorization from the General Assembly, so long as that authorization is consistent with the division of authority between the executive and legislative branches provided in our Home Rule Charter.
With the ongoing, constructive commitment of City Council, I am confident that Philadelphians will continue to have a strong and effective voice in determining the future of public education in our City.
With warm personal regards, I am
Sincerely,
John F. Street, Esquire
Mayor
Enclosure
Cc: Governor Mark Schweiker
Members of City Council
Members of the School Reform Commission
City of Phi
|