Statement to the SRC from Philadelphia Student Union Youth Leadership Team – on the contract decisions for Educational Management Organizations (EMO's)

As the SRC prepares today to decide on contract decisions with EMO’s we are hopeful that the Commission follows the District’s recommendation to only selectively renew EMO contracts with a subset of the schools currently being run by them.

We have repeatedly stated that the data produced by both internal and external sources has concluded that there is no compelling reason for the extra expenditures on EMO contract fees. (Rand/RFA, Accountability Review Council 2007)

Last year at this time we faced a Commission that was not prepared to hold EMO’s accountable. We faced a totally non-transparent “rubber stamp” process in which all EMO contracts were renewed because of a lack of accountability and transparency in dealing with EMO’s. We are confident that this is the year for a change in the way that the SRC deals with EMO’s and we have actively worked to ensure that our communities are not in the same position yet again.

We understand that not all EMO’s are the same. We take issue with EMO’s that have persistently failed our students in some of the most vulnerable communities in Philadelphia, that have attempted to become profitable at the expense of our cash-strapped and sometimes desperate schools. In addition, EMO's have been held to criminally low standards. Contracts call for improving student and teacher attendance by a mere fraction of 1%! What kind of standard is that?

Declining enrollments in EMO schools are also alarming. For example, Edison schools have seen an 18% decline in enrollment over the last four years. In that same time period, enrollment in Victory schools has declined 19%. Why are so many families opting out of EMO-run schools?

Given the data on PSSA performance, the enrollment trends, the ongoing lack of accountability (where does the public go to find out how EMO’s spend their contract fees or what cuts they make in the schools they run – think of what happened at Stetson Middle School in 2004 partially due to a lack of support staff) the fact that 16 out of 70 schools in Corrective Action 2 are currently being run by EMO’s (when that status has been seen as a reason to turn schools over to EMO's in the first place), the lack of quality teacher distribution in EMO schools (Edison schools employ first year teachers at almost twice the rate of the average CA2 school), we have consistently questioned whether the vast majority of EMO’s are really benefiting the students, parents, and communities of Philadelphia.

“I went to McMichael when it was run by an EMO, and I can honestly say that that school didn’t prepare me for West Philadelphia High School,” remarked Khalif Dobson, a sophomore at West.

“I had no idea that Edison was receiving a fee for each student who attends my grandson’s school,” remarked a grandparent of a West Philadelphia elementary school student.

That same grandparent remarked how she was discouraged from testifying at an SRC meeting about her concerns with Edison by her principal who told her that her daughter, employed as a worker in the school, might lose her job.

Today we are ready for a change. We have submitted recommendations to the SRC based on the data provided by the district which compared each EMO run school's PSSA data to other comparable district schools, as well as district restructured schools. Based on that data we find compelling evidence to cut contracts for 17 out of the 38 schools currently being run by EMO's.

We have also encouraged the district to revive its Office of Restructured Schools, a successful district turn-around model that was closed inexplicably in 2005.

http://www.researchforaction.org/publication/details/262) Link to Rand/RFA study
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JExMxySGlq4 Link to PSU video on the topic of Corrective Action 2 and EMO's

Campaign Contributions Information:

• From 2002- 2006, Chris Whittle, CEO of Edison Schools, contributed $15,500.00 to the campaign of Representative Dwight Evans.

• From 2002- 2006, Rhonda Lauer, CEO of Foundations Inc. and her Chief of Staff, Emilio Matticoli, contributed $13,203.00 and $6,100.00, respectively, to the campaign of Representative Dwight Evans.

• Overall, from 2001-2006, Representative Dwight Evans received a total of $66,103.00 in campaign contributions from Victory Schools, Foundations Inc., Chancellor-Beacon, and Edison Schools. Edison Schools and Foundations Inc. contributed the largest amounts, $21,500.00 and $43, 853.00 respectively.

• From 2001-2005, Representative John Perzel received a total of $19,400.00 from Foundations Inc., Edison Schools, and Universal Companies. $12,900 of this sum came from Foundations Inc.

• From 2001-2006, Representative Vincent Fumo received $9,000.00 in campaign contributions from Foundations Inc.

• From 2001-2004, former Mayor John Street received $41,750.00 from Universal Companies and Victory Schools. Between 2001 and 2006, Governor Ed Rendell received $28,250.00 in campaign contributions from Universal Companies and Foundations Inc.