WHY-why? How Chris Satullo gets Philly schools wrong in so many ways

WHYY news director Chris Satullo dedicated his Monday morning address to Philly public schools and the dramatic "reorganization plan" put forth by the state-controlled School Reform Commission (SRC). I'm not surprised that Satullo got this wrong. But it is striking in how many ways he managed to do so.

email
font size
comments
1
share
options
 

WHY-why? How Chris Satullo gets Philly schools wrong in so many ways

POSTED: Wednesday, May 30, 2012, 10:34 AM
Filed Under: Media | News | Schools

WHYY news director Chris Satullo dedicated his Monday morning address to Philly public schools and the dramatic “reorganization plan” put forth by the state-controlled School Reform Commission (SRC).

I'm not surprised that Satullo got this wrong. But it is striking in how many ways he managed to do so.

I'll make this brief:

Satullo: “The city schools are led by a five-person board appointed by the governor and the mayor. I know two of those folks pretty well, and I know the rest well enough to believe they try to do what they think is best to educate the city's children.”

Me: Satullo starts out strong, establishing credibility with listeners: he is buddies with the powerful figures that he is supposed to be, as a journalist, covering.

""Privatization!" That's the cry from the people who've reliably hated just about every gesture towards school overhaul in the last 15 years. This includes the unions representing district employees. I realize these folks have endured many bad ideas and bad managers over the years, but they've never exactly been on the ramparts of innovation, either."

Bad ideas and bad managers”? What, exactly, is wrong with having “reliably hated” a decade of utter failures? Unions, and the teachers and workers they represent, aren't perfect. But they have been on the front lines (along with students and parents) in fighting the state for decent funding—the district's most critical problem.

"There's a lot I don't get yet about the SRC notion, but privatization it is not. Schools will still be publicly funded, with public accountability."

The meaning of privatization” is part of what Satullo doesn't get, I'm afraid. And so we arrive at the fish-in-barrel portion of this critique: First, putting something formerly public (like public schools) under private management (of any private organization, whether for-profit like Edison or "non-profit" like a charter) is privatization. Check Merriam-Webster.

With public accountability”? There has been almost no accountability from the district or state. That's why we have at least 18 Philadelphia area charters under federal investigation since 2008, and malfeasance that ranges from self-dealing real estate transactions and sky-high executive compensation to out-and-out embezzlement. And privatization proponents exercise little “accountability” over the corporate school reform movement they champion: Charters as a whole have consistently failed to outperform traditional public schools, and those in Pennsylvania have underperformed them. Yet Mr. Satullo, who says, “the trick is to figure out how to replicate the successes while shutting down the charlatans and the fools” — even though that's exactly what has not happened over the past decade — continues to tout charters as the solution.

Proponents of the SRC plan like to accuse opponents of being “ideologues.” Both sides do indeed have “ideas” about public education. But Mr. Satullo's team happens to lack the facts.

Posted by Daniel Denvir @ 10:34 AM  Permalink | 1 comment
Comments  (1)
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 9:44 AM, 05/31/2012
    Charter schools are only public went it suits their purpose, such as getting their hands on public tax monies. However, they instantly become non-profit or private organizations who do not have to honor the rights of public employees, honor demands by the State for audits and financial records that those who receive public funds are required to do when asked.

    Bruce Baker at Rutgers University recently wrote: Charters can limit their total enrollment; can admit students only on an annual basis and not accept any mid-year; and “can set academic, behavior, and cultural standards that promote exclusion of students via attrition.”

    Public schools have NO such options. Sounds like privatization to me.
    wiltech


About this blog
Here at The Naked City, you'll find breaking news, analysis, gossip and surprises about everything from crime and politics to the beating pulse of city life itself. We're good listeners, too:

Daniel Denvir: daniel.denvir@citypaper.net

Ryan Briggs: ryan.briggs@citypaper.net

Samantha Melamed: samantha@citypaper.net

The Naked City on Twitter: @CPNakedCity @danieldenvir @rw_briggs @samanthamelamed

Topics:
Blog archives:
Past Archives: