Name-Check the Children

The school reform debate makes one thing clear: It's all about the kids.

by Doron Taussig

Education

On Friday, Nov. 10, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that Philadelphia schools CEO Paul Vallas didn't want to ask the state for help with the district's current financial problems. "You don't ask for money you don't deserve," he told the paper, and went on to explain that the district shouldn't ask for more money than other localities. It was fairly clear he meant that city schools had to prove themselves trustworthy to the state.

Later that day, the School Reform Commission, which oversees the schools, held a hearing at the district's headquarters at 440 N. Broad St., a posh, pretty building that has filled more than one visiting schoolteacher's mind with uncharitable thoughts. During the meeting, the commissioners had an opportunity to address the audience. Commissioner Daniel Whelan rehashed Vallas' comment to the Inquirer , then rebuffed him for his supposed implication that children don't "deserve" the best.

The strange thing is, Whelan doesn't disagree with Vallas' position on state money. "Until the district demonstrates it intends to eliminate [inefficiencies]," he wrote in an email after the hearing, "the state and city have a legitimate reason not to supply emergency funding." First, though, he wanted to attack the CEO: Don't you love children, Mr. Vallas?

Last month, the School District of Phila-delphia announced it was running a $73 million deficit, after projecting a balanced budget in April, and after the SRC voted in late August to give Vallas a three-year contract extension and a raise. With budget cuts looming, Mayor Street (and numerous advocates) demanded that the SRC engage in a "public process" before making any decisions. State Sunshine laws require the commission to hold its votes in a public forum, and the commission has now held four hearings to give the public an opportunity to weigh in on the budget issue.

This certainly sounds virtuous. But the SRC hearings have been, to a frustrating degree, political theater. Discussions of specifics, such as whether going to the state for a bailout is a strategically savvy move, have often been overshadowed by moralistic dramatics, such as the question of what children "deserve." Political entities are taking advantage of the proceedings to knock their enemies and regale the city with tales of their love for children.

Leading the way, of course, have been politicians. Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell and former Councilman George Burrell both made ineffectual appearances at hearings. (Burrell, for instance, employed a football metaphor to remind the commission to keep doing reform.) City Controller Alan Butkovitz, who has apparently decided to base a future run for higher office on his record with children's issues, trafficked in slightly greater specificity, but took full advantage of his opportunity to bash Vallas, with whom he has tangled before. And Mayor Street has declared several times that he intends to be present for "every drop" of the SRC budget process (so far, about 14 hours' worth). He takes his preferred seat in the front row, stage right, and occasionally panders to the audience by sounding off about the need for public input.

The SRC members have followed the politicians' lead. It's not clear whether any commissioners have aspirations to electoral office, but they're certainly acting like it. At the Nov. 10 hearing, in front of a crowd consisting largely of students who'd been brought in as props (and, it should be noted, were missing school as a result, the lucky punks), Commissioner Martin Bednarek opined that he felt "betrayed" by the district, and Commissioner Whelan objected loudly to the existence of district chauffeurs — a reasonable point, but one that was more symbolic than substantive.

Even advocates and parents have gotten in on the political act, occasionally testifying revealingly about the damages of budget cuts, but also making melodramatic speeches about the importance of education.

Does this sad display mean the public hearings are useless? Not necessarily. The rationale behind open meetings, says Charles Davis of the National Freedom of Information Center, is for "people to have some sense of the deliberations of public officials," and for officials to behave better consequently. Though the SRC hearings have been obnoxious, they may still have accomplished these goals. Embedded in the B.S., a good deal of information has been made available to the public, and the Commission is now acutely aware that people are watching its every move.

The hearings could, possibly, be better: Davis argues that Pennsylvania's Sunshine laws are too weak, and allow too much to go on behind closed doors. If everything were in the open, he says, discussion would be healthier.

But legislative changes can only do so much to change the SRC atmosphere, because in the end, it's the city's political atmosphere we're seeing. Consider, for example, a Nov. 14 editorial published in the Daily News . After calling for an end to personal agendas and "gotcha" politics in the SRC, the paper showed that its heart was in the right place. "It would be good for all involved," the News wrote, "to stop for a moment to remember why they are here in the first place: The students." In Philadelphia, it seems, everyone loves children too much not to pander.

(doron@citypaper.net)