Lisa Haver, a retired teacher and current activist in Philadelphia, wonders why state and city leaders are so fearful of democracy. When state control of the public schools ended—capping a two-decade era of defunding and additional privatization of public assets—it was replaced by mayoral control. She argues that Philadelphia needs an elected school board.
We vote for our leaders in every election.
But not for Philadelphia’s school board.
Unlike voters in every other district in Pennsylvania, those in Philadelphia continue to be disenfranchised when choosing their local school board….
Philadelphia’s new hand-picked Board of Education was sworn in recently, immediately after City Council’s one mandated confirmation. The hearing, confirmation vote and swearing-in created nary a disturbance in the force, without coverage from any major newspaper, radio or television outlet, save the independent Public School Notebook.
In fact, little notice was paid to the nomination process itself. Although many Philadelphians believe that “local control” was restored after the abolition of the School Reform Commission, the District actually operates under mayoral control. Months ago, the mayor selected his nominating panel which, at his direction, held deliberations in closed executive session, arguably violating the state’s Sunshine Act and shutting out those with a heavy stake in the District—parents, educators, students and community members.
The Council hearing on the mayor’s choices offered one brief opportunity for the public to hear from the nominees. For some reason, though, all questions were directed to the incumbents, none to the one new candidate. Ameen Akbar was sworn in without having to explain his philosophy of education, his vision for the future of the District, or his work in the charter sector, in particular his affiliation with the Universal charter network, whose former CEO and chief financial operator were indicted in January on bribery charges, alongside one Councilmember and his wife.
Will this unelected board resist the sales pitches from purveyors of technology? Will they insist on transparency and accountability for charter schools?
Philadelphia needs an elected board.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
All communities deserve the right to an elected school board. It is the best way to ensure that decisions represent the interests of the residents. Mayoral control politicizes education. Mayors tend to yield to the interests of wealthy donors instead of addressing the concerns of the public. Mayoral appointments are just as bad since the appointments often represent special interest groups, not the interests of the people that live in the community. Mayoral control often leads to a corrupt privatization scheme.
LikeLike
“fearful of democracy.” The entire two decades of school reform in three words.
LikeLike
What haunting, familiar words…. “When state control of the public schools ended—capping a two-decade era of defunding and additional privatization of public assets—it was replaced by mayoral control.” In St. Louis, in 2006, Mayor Slay reacted with anger, when Peter Downs, with 1/7th of the money, was elected to the board…An all out assault to replace the elected board produced a state takeover that lasted more than ten years, and resulted in 12,000 children subtracted from the school district to be on charter schools….A Post Dispatch columnist reassured me that the death of a former student who had a judge remove a family services report removed after four years…assured me that his murder that year had nothing to do with school issues…..it was because of a gambling debt or a girl. He became angry when I posted what he had told me he had been told by the police. He might have been right….I will never know for sure.
LikeLike
I’m of two minds on this. I compare it to the election of judges. My experience with elected school boards in my small district and the adjacent board of a larger city has been dispiriting. In the district in which I have lived for 18 years—one of the reasons we located here was because I wanted my children to attend a diverse public school system—has been bad. One longtime school board member who lost in the last election, never attended college, was irrationally obstructionist about teacher autonomy, used the position to get her son to be a principal at one of the schools, and politicized issues because she knew her long-term family ties would get her reelected, until she was ousted after more than 20 years on the board. Her campaign pitch was, she didn’t have a full-time job and she had time to do the job. The other members are basically rubber stamps for a superintendent who is a careerist focused on a pension and mealy-mouthed as he works with Fordham initiatives so that he can get a good job once his pension kicks in. The other elected members of the board literally do nothing. They are rubber stamps of an administration that seeks to serve their future job opportunities, not the interests of the system’s students and teachers. As long as they can check off meaningless charts before they head back to work. Wouldn’t it be more beneficial to choose from educational leaders who understand the day-to-day challenges of teachers and other employees ? Someone with expierinx and qualifications? I’m not ready to endorse elections. I value commitment and flexibility to and for teachers. Some type of system that vets qualifications, experience, and public welfare seems to be to better—ideally, that is.
LikeLike