Thank you. 81 of the PDE regulations, Chapter 4, which initiated an investigation. My most recent contact with PDE informed me that the Administration has not responded in a satisfactory way to their inquiries. The State Department of Education is not amused. 2956 3/8/00-SCHOOL BUDGET-CONT'D-BILLS 7,8,9 At this point, you may be asking why I am bringing curriculum and certification concerns to the City Council's budget hearings. I believe that the School District's flagrant disregard for both the State mandates and the State's inquiries into the compliance may have a negative effect on district finances. There are two legal remedies the State Department of Education can use to compel the School District to comply with their laws? 1. They can fine the School District, as they did to an upstate district which eliminated family and consumer sciences. Can Philadelphia afford this loss of revenue? 2. They can revoke the certification of any administrator who is having teachers teach out of their certification. Can Philadelphia manage the chaos that decertification of large numbers of administrators would cost? And as the City goes to Harrisburg to request the additional funds we need to provide an efficient and thorough education for our children commensurate with that received by students in the suburbs, is it wise to offend the very people to 2957 3/8/00-SCHOOL BUDGET-CONT'D-BILLS 7,8,9 whom we are appealing for additional funding? On many occasions, Harrisburg has criticized the School District for financial irresponsibility. Unfortunately, when these FCS programs are closed, the laboratories are dismantled, and the equipment and supplies dissipated, Harrisburg's criticisms appear to be valid. There seems to be no working policy in the School District for safeguarding the extensive investment the taxpayers have made in these laboratories and equipment. Many teachers have told me that usable equipment has been thrown away. At one school, the principal sent in a parent to clear out the cabinets and threw away some of the teacher's personal possessions as well as School District equipment. Another teacher carefully boxed and labeled the equipment she was told would be transported to and stored at Kennedy Center, but a coworker saw those neatly-labeled boxes on the curb on trash day. In the autumn of 1993, I requested some of the equipment from the Dobson School, which closed their home ec. program that summer. Dr. 2958 3/8/00-SCHOOL BUDGET-CONT'D-BILLS 7,8,9 Benjamin Dent reported that no such equipment could be located, and he had to assume that it had, quote, been pilfered, unquote. Many other home ec. teachers have reported much the same response when requesting equipment from closed programs. They are reluctant to let me use their names in open testimony, as they fear retaliation by their superiors. The only equipment which has arrived at another school is that which the teachers themselves have transported. One teacher, whose program was being closed, transferred all of the usable equipment and supplies to five different schools with the help of receiving teachers. Instead of the School District commending them for their volunteer service, the District harassed them. Isn't it ironic that the only accountability for equipment was provided by dedicated teaches doing volunteer work? Having a written policy is not enough. Being able to provide State legislators and auditors with inventory lists and a tour of the storage facilities would go a long way to show fiscal responsibility. 2959 3/8/00-SCHOOL BUDGET-CONT'D-BILLS 7,8,9 The obvious approach to showing good faith to the Department of Education and State legislators is for the School District to come into compliance with these State regulations by doing the following: 1. Write standards to be included in the curriculum frameworks as a content area. 2. Appoint a curriculum coordinator for family and consumer sciences to facilitate that inclusion. 3.
Hold principals accountable for establishing family and consumer sciences programs with laboratories for the hands-on education Children Achieving recommends. And no. 4. Hire certified teachers of home economics to teach those classes. We wish to invite you to exert your influence on the School District to ensure that our students have the family and consumer sciences instruction they need while complying with the requirements of our major funding source. Our students deserve no less. I will be happy to answer any questions. 2960 3/8/00-SCHOOL BUDGET-CONT'D-BILLS 7,8,9
So one of the things that you're saying is that people will no 4 longer have a cooking class or a sewing in addition to the other consumer-related classes?
Neither those two areas of home economics or child development, family relations, consumer ed., and all the other parts of it. Cooking and sewing is a minor part now because it is a minor part of our daily lives. People don't do the amount of cooking and sewing that they used to, so we don't teach that much.
But many, many families don't spend the amount of time in the preparation of the food that they did, and so we have -- we still do it, but not -- you just don't take a cooking course unless you're in a vocational program like the culinary arts program.
Like when we were 2961 3/8/00-SCHOOL BUDGET-CONT'D-BILLS 7,8,9 in junior high, we --
Not like when we were in junior high and we spent one semester making an apron and the other semester learning how to cook.
Okay. And I guess we would need to hear from the School District, particularly why these classes are being cut. I do know of a couple instances. For example, one in my district, where the entire classroom -- I think it was maybe about five or six stoves or maybe eight little mini kitchens in this great big room was dismantled. And I had heard that things were pretty much put out in the trash.
Yes. We have pictures of one Dumpster filled with usable equipment, including textbooks.
Mm-hmm, okay. So maybe we can ask -- Mr. Hornbeck's here, he's still in the audience, to respond to this family and consumer science curriculum -- or lack of. (Dr. Hornbeck returns to witness table.) 2962 3/8/00-SCHOOL BUDGET-CONT'D-BILLS 7,8,9
Let me make two comment, if I may. One is that we, of course, disagree with Miss Babcock about her interpretation of the State law, and we have consulted with City Council on these issues, and we do believe that we're in compliance with the law. And that issues of the kind particularly that Ms. Babcock just described -- child development, nutrition issues and others -- are a part of the standards that we've developed in a variety of the areas. For example, both in science and in the health standards. Secondly, it is true that one of the things that we struggled with is placing the kind of emphasis that we believe is necessary, particularly on literacy, in the first instance, and on math and science. And so there are a number of separate individual courses that, as a consequence, are not offered. So we believe that we are meeting the requirements of State law while, at the same time, not necessarily doing that within the framework of individual courses in the way in which Ms. Babcock believes is required under State law. 2963 3/8/00-SCHOOL BUDGET-CONT'D-BILLS 7,8,9
If I could respond to that very briefly, as I've gotten my information from the State Department, and they said that I was correct.
Just to make the observation. There have been other moments when the State Department of Education and the School District of Philadelphia are not entirely in accord.
What exactly -- so who's in charge? If they're not in accord, what does that mean? So who has to do what? If the School District and the State disagree, we could begin everything -- we could begin with Adam in terms of what we think in education. Isn't the State the boss in that respect?
Well, for example, the State Department of Education thinks that they fairly fund the School District of Philadelphia and its children. We disagree with that. And in 2964 3/8/00-SCHOOL BUDGET-CONT'D-BILLS 7,8,9 that particular instance, among other things, we're involved in federal court because we believe that we are being treated unfairly. It's just an example of what I mean when I say we don't always agree with each other.
Okay. This family consumer and sciences program, does every child have to have so much of this? Like when we were in school, you had good citizenship and all of those things. Where does this fit into our curriculum for kids?
The number of hours has been taken out of the State law. What it is, is that sometime during the 5th and the 6th and 7th and 8th grade, the students have to have instruction in family and consumer sciences. There is no -- what we're supposed to do is set up standards and then devote the amount of time that is necessary to achieve those. The State doesn't say, You have to have 30 hours like they used to, just enough time to meet the standards. And State standards are in the process of being developed, they are complete, and they 2965 3/8/00-SCHOOL BUDGET-CONT'D-BILLS 7,8,9 are waiting in present communications to be let out of the that particular part and going to the two-year process of approval with statewide hearings and that sort of thing. As soon as they are released from present communications, they will be on the Web, and I have put the Website address in your packet.
Thank you, Councilwoman Blackwell. I guess this is a topic that we would probably need to expand some discussion around, and we'll give you a call, Miss Babcock, and we can talk about it further. I'm glad that you came today and brought this subject up, and there will be further discussion. I'll give you a call.
The last person on our list to testify is former Councilperson Ed Schwartz. (Ed Schwartz comes forward.) 2966 3/8/00-SCHOOL BUDGET-CONT'D-BILLS 7,8,9
Here, I have some material for you guys, as always, if somebody could grab that.
Good evening. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. My name is Ed Schwartz, and I'm here from the Institute for the Study of Civic Values. And I'm here today not simply to support the School District in its quest for additional funds from Harrisburg, but to urge that we all see this battle as the price we must pay if the largest city in this Commonwealth, America's founding city and the home of the first public school in America, is to succeed as a city in the future. In 1995, in adopting Children Achieving, the School District set forth the following long-term goal for education in Philadelphia: namely, that at the end of 12 years, 90 percent of our students would be achieving, and the Superintendent tells me that it 2967 3/8/00-SCHOOL BUDGET-CONT'D-BILLS 7,8,9 is at proficient in their various levels, not simply basic but proficient, meaning above grade level or better. They recognize that this was a Herculean undertaking, given how far below basic most of our students were at the time, and still are. And "basic" really means grade level. But that's what the Superintendent and the School Board asked our support to help them do. And without thinking about it, everyone said more or less, sure. What we perhaps did not realize is that this superintendent, David Hornbeck, and that School Board, and now this one meant it. This wasn't going to be one of these, Well, we'll do it if we can propositions, compromised the moment it proved difficult to accomplish. This was going to be a serious goal, with ongoing indicators for progress, to be backed by recommendations from the leadership of the School District as to what Children Achieving would have required. So the basic questions that we need to ask at this point are these: Are we still committed to a long-range effort to bring all students in Philadelphia up to 2968 3/8/00-SCHOOL BUDGET-CONT'D-BILLS 7,8,9 proficient or better by the year 2007? If we are, do we agree with the School District's assessment of what this will cost? And if we don't agree, if we don't agree with their cost estimates, then what do we think it should cost? And once we all agree as to this goal and the relevant cause, how are hard we willing to fight to pay the price? Isn't this precisely what we are asked to do in relation to major economic-development projects? In 1997, the federal government awarded the City $320 million, equivalent to nearly double that today, to build a tunnel between our two rail stations, in the name of economic development. When I served in City Council in the 1980s, Harrisburg awarded us, I believe, $150 million -- maybe it was 185 million -- to help defray the cost of a convention center that right now absorbs, I believe, $20 million in debt service -- is that, correct Charlie, $20 million? -- from the General Fund again to promote our economy. And then there's the Navy Yard, the Kvaerner project, and now the stadiums, each with 2969 3/8/00-SCHOOL BUDGET-CONT'D-BILLS 7,8,9 their price tag for us and for Harrisburg, all defended in the name of economic development. Well, that, in my judgment, is the way we need to see Children Achieving -- as a sustained effort to help the citizens of Philadelphia become employable in the emerging information economy so that the City itself can grow. Three years ago, as part of the Institute's effort to fight for funding for adult literacy, I documented that the fastest-growing cities in this country -- Boston, Phoenix, Portland, San Jose, and Dallas -- all had high school graduation rates of 80 percent or better. The slow-growth cities, like Philadelphia, all had high school graduation rates of only 60 percent. Just as an individual with a high school degree earns $7,000 more than someone without one, and a college graduate earns twice the income of a high school graduate, $40,000 versus $20,000, that is in the appendix from the Census Bureau that I attached here.
So a city without large pool of educated employees cannot hope to compete in the growth high-tech industries 2970 3/8/00-SCHOOL BUDGET-CONT'D-BILLS 7,8,9 that are emerging today and setting the terms of our economic profile as a nation. So the relevant question is not, can we afford to finance Children Achieving? The question is, how can we not afford to support this program or some comparable large-scale effort to improve our schools if Philadelphia hopes to achieve its goals for its economic progress in this, our new millennium? So where are we now? The simple answer is, we're, in fact, falling behind our target. To keep pace with the pace of progress established in 1995, each cluster at this point must reduce the number of students testing below basic by roughly 5 percent each year. Now, I admit and acknowledge that there has continued to be, as Reverend Shine said, incremental progress, and that's good, but we are falling behind the targets set for that progress. In fact, only two clusters -- William Penn and Roxborough -- met that goal in 1998-'99. This is in a table in the back. That means that 20 clusters must now reduce the percentage of students below basic by 2971 3/8/00-SCHOOL BUDGET-CONT'D-BILLS 7,8,9 better than percent in the coming year or remain behind its two-year cycle for improvement. And all of this is documented in an appendix that I've provided you here. The picture is especially bleak in relation to the neighborhood high schools. By that, I mean the schools other than the magnet schools like CAPA and Bodine or Central and Masterman. And by the way, just in terms of achievement, in response to one of the testimonies that was made earlier today, when the School District sets about to create an excellent, top-level school, it achieves. The two highest performing schools in this whole region are, in fact, Masterman and Central. It comes up again and again at the top of every regional listing of high schools. But now I'm talking not about those schools where we find the best students and push them forward; I'm talking about our neighborhood high schools. And unfortunately, roughly 83 percent of these neighborhood high schools and vocational schools are still testing below basic, 83 percent. And you can look again at a separate 2972 3/8/00-SCHOOL BUDGET-CONT'D-BILLS 7,8,9 page we've provided on each of these neighborhood high schools. So there is improvement, but it's not fast enough. The only neighborhood high school that kept pace, in fact, with a 5 percent increase this year, was Kensington High School. Everything else was below that, and some of these high schools, in fact, were -- oh, well, I see we have some Kensington High School -- I did not even know that, I'm stating the truth as it's there. But this means that more than 43,000 young people out of the roughly 52,000 students enrolled in these schools are still testing below basic. These young people will be graduating over the next few years. Can they make it in today's economy, even with their high school diplomas? And, again, isn't this a question we all need to ask as we look at the future of the City? Some may say that no matter what we spend, it's impossible to achieve these goals. Again, the evidence does not support this proposition. Now here, I've done some sort of original work. In a third page in your packet, I have identified and am providing to you 37 schools 2973 3/8/00-SCHOOL BUDGET-CONT'D-BILLS 7,8,9 in Philadelphia that achieved at least a 3 percent reduction in the number of students 4 testing below basic in a single year, at least 10 5 percent. That means they've met their two-year goal or more in a single year. In fact, 11 of these schools achieved better than a 20 percent 8 reduction. 6 percent were below basic in 1999 -- a drop of more than 40 percent. Schools like this appear all over the City, in some of our poorest neighborhoods.
And we need to understand why these schools are succeeding so that we can apply their experience to the schools that are not. And this is the basis on which we need to evaluate the School District's request for additional funding as well -- all those new program that columnists like Tom Ferrick, in the Inquirer this morning, dismissed as needless frills. If the School District is now asking 2974 3/8/00-SCHOOL BUDGET-CONT'D-BILLS 7,8,9 for more support for after-school programs and summer school and enriched services for students who are failing, it is because these appear now to be necessary to meet the performance goals that the District has set for the students of Philadelphia. If we agree that these goals are valid, then relevant questions are: One, are these new programs essential to meeting them? Is the cost of these new programs reasonable? If the cost of the programs is reasonable, then are there other programs and services that are supported by the School District now that we can drop to help pay for them, without jeopardizing the sort of education that we hope to provide in Philadelphia? My own hunch is that the programs are essential to meeting them, and the cost is reasonable. I equally suspect, as a parent whose daughter attended public schools in Philadelphia, that there are not all these frills that critics of the District claim there are, though I'm open to suggestion, but that is what the School Board and the Mayor and the Council and the Governor and the State legislature need to be discussing in the 2975 3/8/00-SCHOOL BUDGET-CONT'D-BILLS 7,8,9 weeks and months ahead. Again, we take this kind of analysis for granted in relation to economic development. We need to see education as economic development and apply the same process to our shared investment in our schools. I do have three additional suggestions for this City Council. First, you should get to know not only the schools in your district, which I do know you do know, but the performance scores of those schools in relation to Children Achieving. This will give you a school-by-school perspective on these matters that can help in evaluating the big picture with the School District as well. And all of these scores, by the way, are on the Internet, on the School District's Website. That's where I got all of the information that I'm giving to you. It's fairly easy to get into it either, from their Website or mine, but one way or the other, you can get them. Secondly, I invite you to assign a member of your staff, each of you, to a citywide e-mail list that I am managing on these issues via 2976 3/8/00-SCHOOL BUDGET-CONT'D-BILLS 7,8,9 the Internet. org, and I'll add them to the list because this is where we're having a dialogue among activists and people in the school system and others about these issues on a day-to-day basis. And, finally, on the separate page that I've given you, the one that's not stapled, I call your continuing to a social contract that we have negotiated between the leadership of the Cook Middle School in Logan, the Olney Cluster, and community leaders in the surrounding Logan neighborhood, defining their mutual responsibility to improve education at Cook. This is the sort of agreement that we need to develop throughout the City. And I would add in response to the comment about the need for a student profile, I note in the material associated with some of the new programs that there is some discussion in the School District's new programs about a parent compact, relating to their own kid in educational performance. I think that comes pretty close to the sort of profile that is being called for here. 2977 3/8/00-SCHOOL BUDGET-CONT'D-BILLS 7,8,9 But the critical part is to see all of this as an aspect of our ongoing effort to help our children and our city succeed.
And if we're serious about that, and Harrisburg can be persuaded to see Philadelphia residents as Pennsylvania residents as well, whose success is a part of the success of this Commonwealth as well, then we have a chance to build the kind of school system in the future of which every one of us can be proud. I want to thank you for your time and attention. I call your attention to the charts in the back for your use. There is also something here from the Greater Philadelphia Urban Affairs Coalition, a Guide to the School Budget, which you may have seen, but I think it's a useful reminder, at least a couple years ago as to what the School District is spending on various aspects of this work. And then there is the census data here that shows you how much a student graduate earns at different levels of education. Imagine doubling the number -- imagine 200,000 students in the Philadelphia School District who graduated 2978 3/8/00-SCHOOL BUDGET-CONT'D-BILLS 7,8,9 high school and went on to college, and look at the income increase. And start comparing that to the kind of income projections you get when the economic development people come to you and say, If only you put down X-amount, the tax ratables will grow, and by the year 2030, eventually the amount we're investing in the City budget will be repaid. What a fast return on investment we would get if could double the number of students going to college, double the number of students who've graduated high school at a high-school heavily of performance, and you begin to see how this impacts on other things that we do take seriously and even manage to raise support from Harrisburg for doing. So I thank you again for your time and attention, and I look forward to working with you again on this in the future.
I want to thank you. Your testimony is also very, very informative,.
And we can 2979 3/8/00-SCHOOL BUDGET-CONT'D-BILLS 7,8,9 see that you did a lot of work here.
And we certainly appreciate your coming in and sharing the information with us.
The truth is, I've been doing this work and was glad to have an opportunity to come somewhere and share it. I've been sitting at my home doing it, so I'm glad to have this chance. So thank you very much. (Applause.)
Is there anyone else to testify on these bills? (No response.)
Seeing none, this committee will stand in recess until Monday, March 13, at 9:00 a.m. Thank you all very much. (Adjourned at 5:33 p.m.) - - - 2980 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Wednesday, March 8, 2000, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE BILL NO.'S 000007, 000008, 000009 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter