Woodrow Wilson famously said that America is not a country of people who get their names in the newspapers, and the founding of the founding of the Ogontz Area Neighbors Association in December of 1959 did not get any newspaper coverage at all.

At a house somewhere between Broad Street and Ogontz Avenue, between Olney and Chelten Avenues, an interracial group of African Americans who had arrived in the community relatively recently and white, largely Jewish people, whose roots in the community went back further in time, decided that it was time for people of both races then present to work together to improve their mutual community.

Last week the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (PLRB) announced the results of the election to represent the 2,300 cafeteria workers and noon time aides in the Philadelphia School District: members of UNITE HERE Local 634 voted by a 2:1 margin to stay with their union and rejected SEIU’s anti-union tactics.

After months of attacks directed by New York-based SEIU 32BJ, the PLRB counted 1121 votes for UNITE HERE Local 634 and only 551 votes for SEIU Philadelphia Joint Board. There were 10 votes for no union and 198 challenged ballots.

It’s a question that Parents United for Public Education, Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, and the Education Law Center are considering right now.

At issue is this section of state law, 72 PS 5341.21, which states that responsibility for the expenses of the BRT lies with the county:

§ 5341.21. All salaries provided for in this act and the proper expenses of the board shall be paid out of the treasury of the county.

The Pennsylvania School Boards Association said they aren’t aware of any other county in the state which charged a school district for property tax assessments. Why us?

So hot on the tail of some active discussion roundabout these parts over who we should be looking most intensely over lack of progress on botched property assessments, patronage and waste in the Bureau of Revision of Taxes - City Council or the Mayor, City Council weighs in. Actually almost as if to explicitly to say "It's us".

In May, the school board only budgeted enough money to pay the BRT workers until Sept. 30 and said it would prefer that the workers go under the city payroll - a nudge for Mayor Nutter and City Council to act.

But that seems unlikely anytime soon. Even the Council members who are most fed up with the BRT's inaccurate assessments say that patronage isn't the real problem.

"Whether they are committee people or not, I am sensitive to people being unemployed," said Councilman Frank DiCicco, who is pushing for reforms at BRT.

The Coalition to Save the Libraries cover up InPDUM's banner

With the news that the Mayor and City Council are in a fuddle over what to do with the Bureau of Revision of Taxes, here's one place to start:

TAKE THE BRT EMPLOYEES OFF THE SCHOOL PAYROLL

Why is it relevant to the situation before the city?

• According to the District's FY10 budget book (p. 332), the BRT expenses have actually increased this year by 17% and will again next year a nominal amount. Their behavior can't be rewarded.

• The School District houses 80 employees, between a third and 40% of the total number of BRT employees. That's a sizeable figure.

• Because city ethic laws prohibit political hires, many of the most political people on the BRT land on the school payroll - like ward leader Donna Aument, or "clerks" Helyn Cheeks, David Shadding, and Lorenzo McCray all of whom were mentioned by name in Monday's unbelievable "BRT serves as political jobs bank" story. In fact, according to our studies, at least 40% of School District employees, hold political positions as ward or committee leaders.

• Putting them back onto the city payroll clears a $4.5 million burden on the schools - AND helps offset the fact that the city is delivering $10 million less in funds to the schools anyway - AND forces the political hires off the BRT payroll or loses them the plum political assignments that appeared to be the primary qualification for "clerkship."

There's no question something needs to be done about this agency - especially and because of the Mayor's proposed property tax hike and the Actual Value Initiative. But calls from one extreme (abolish the BRT!) to another (let's wait!) shouldn't hide the fact that one move could strike a quick blow to the BRT's system of operation.

(Read a school-focused take on the BRT at The Public School Notebook's website)

OK I stole that line from Jon Stewart, but what do you say about the Inky’s phenomenal series about the Bureau of Revision of Taxes – the people who’ve been assessing your homes?

What do you say when:

• The BRT’s Executive Director who took full advantage of the city’s DROP program only to return to work with a pay raise two days later says he has “nothing to do” with property tax assessments;

• One member of the BRT’s board became president of Citizen’s Alliance, former Sen. Vince Fumo’s non-profit that was at the center of his corruption trial, and is currently being investigated on abuses including unlawfully increasing taxes on a property that the Senator had allegedly wanted to purchase;

• Agency officials told reporters that a tax assessor, who had reduced an assessment for the BRT board member above, had “died.” She hadn’t and basically told reporters she was encouraged to reduce the taxes on that board member’s property;

• Private deals on commercial properties abound including a 44% reduction in the assessed value of the Ritz Carlton from $35 million down to $19.5 million.

• Two members of the BRT’s board say they don’t know anything about the sunshine law or conducting official business in public?

And there are so many amazing quotes here, quotes you can’t quite make-up like:

Catherine Scott, Local 2187 pres., representing some BRT workers: "I don’t think it’s fair to say none of them work. The level of work varies greatly."

Republican leader Michael Meehan on why the BRT is where old Parking Authority employees go: "At a certain age they can’t be out on the street on a cold day and walking. The BRT is a more attractive place."

BRT Executive Director Enrico Foglia on his non-relationship with Dem. Party Chief/U.S. Congressman Robert Brady: "It’s not like we’re old buddies or nothing like that. I wasn’t real tight with Bobby."

Court of Common Pleas Judge William Manfredi on qualifications of BRT board members: "I haven’t the faintest."

When the district announced that they would be creating a 5 year strategic plan, they promised that it would be an open, transparent, and community-based process. I believed them at first. I even joined one of the strategic plan working groups- "Highly Effective Educators". I gave input, excited that the district was finally actively seeking out community input. After that process, which I felt really good about since we had come up with what I thought was an awesome and reasonable list of recommendations with clearly defined priorities, the district sent two people to meet with an organization that I'm a part of- The Philadelphia Student Union. My colleagues (other high school students) and I gave more input here. At this point I really was convinced that this administration was different, that the horror stories I had heard about life under Vallas and the horror stories I had been a part of under Brady were over. I knew Dr. Ackerman wasn't perfect but maybe she really was sincere about community involvement. And then the draft of the plan came out. Almost nothing from the Highly Effective Educators working group was a part of it. We had identified teacher equity and site selection as our top priorities, and neither was included. Nothing from the district's session with PSU was in the draft either. I was disappointed, but I thought that maybe the word "draft" would open opportunities for real engagement. I went to community meetings at schools, my working group reconvened, I was a part of another listening session as a member of City Wide Student Government. I got "engaged" every way I knew how. And that was just me. Student Union as an organization and other students as individuals spent countless hours trying to talk with the district. Our questions were ignored, marginalized and side-stepped. Our suggestions were faithfully written down and then ignored. When the revised draft came out (partly as a result of pressure exerted by PSU and other organizing groups) I wasn't surprised to see that again, none of the suggestions I had given or had heard given in any meeting I had been in were incorporated. In the end, Student Union and our allies did manage to get some of our issues addressed in the final version of the plan, although key language around the Renaissance schools and around teacher equity is still lacking. It was a bizarre experience, hearing Ackerman proclaim constantly that the plan was "all for the children", but then marginalize "the children" when we came to her door asking to be heard.

This is a long story to make a simple point: the right to speak doesn't amount to anything without the right to be listened to. We consistently demand "community processes" only to be given instead informational meetings and lip service. Since the various institutions in the city: school district, city government, etc. don't seem to understand what exactly a real community process looks like, maybe we need to be more explicit with them from now on about what exactly we are looking for. Simply put, we're looking for genuine dialogue. The only way to be sure that we have been listened to before we see the final result is to demand that we have a real conversation. Why aren't we able to give suggestions and then demand an answer as to why they weren't included? Maybe then some of the real motives behind including some ideas and not others would have to come out.

The district has another crucial "community engagement" process coming up with the Renaissance Schools, and this time we have to hold them accountable not just for "engaging" the community, but for respecting us as decision makers.

(Cross-posted at the Notebook's blog)

Anytime the School District has to summon a line-up of politicians to testify on its behalf, you know something’s up.

On Wednesday night, a group of political heavy-hitters opened the School Reform Commission meeting to urge the SRC to vote in favor of the District’s controversial strategic plan – Imagine 2014. Meanwhile CEO Arlene Ackerman issued dramatic statements that emphasized just how much pressure the District was exerting on the SRC for its vote:

"Tonight is the night that we demonstrate to [children] that we care . . . Tonight is the night the School Reform Commission acts on behalf of all of our children," Ackerman said during the meeting, which drew a capacity audience to the District's headquarters on Broad Street near Spring Garden.

And vote they did, 4-0 with hardly a question asked. Not one clarifying remark was made by a single commissioner to explain why each had voted on a plan that had generated lukewarm enthusiasm and enough controversy to result in last-minute plan adjustments, community meetings, a new budget, and political muscling.

Which makes one wonder: what happened behind closed doors to put the muzzle on the SRC?

(Cross-posted at The Notebook's blog)

As a parent, I’ve never been a fan of the policy to close school on election days – a ridiculous practice that has been going on since the Vallas administration.

But the latest news that the City is forcing schools to add two extra days to the school calendar because they want to close schools for the May 19th election has me particularly irritated.

First and foremost, the primary function of schools is schooling. Period. Since when did certain city officials get to determine that 168,000 children should be somewhere else on a perfectly legitimate day during the year for their own convenience?

Second, I think it’s great that most schools are polling places. As a former teacher, it used to be one of my favorite days of the year – a built-in civics lesson on participatory democracy. Classrooms across the city used to engage in mock elections, mock polling, brushing up on elections both big and small. What educator would cede that opportunity with children?

Election day, for most people, is also the only time during the year that they have a chance to step into their neighborhood school. And I, for one, think people ought to see schools living and breathing with the very kids who go there. Erasing the children from the picture removes the very purpose of the essential role schools function in our communities.

Finally, I’m particularly irritated by the claim that city officials want to close schools because they worry about children’s safety. For decades schools have remained open during election day. I’m stunned that these unnamed city officials feel like Election Day has suddenly become a political legacy no matter the cost to hundreds of thousands of children, families and school staff in the region. In addition, it’s not exactly cheap to open 268 school buildings and pay staff to hang around in supposed professional development seminars.

The March snowstorm took us all by surprise, but our kids and parents shouldn’t have to pay for two extra days at the end of the year, when a perfectly valuable educational opportunity awaits us on May 19th.

In a shocking turn of events, both the Inquirer and the Daily News are reporting that School Reform Commission Chair Sandra Dungee Glenn may be off the SRC. Media reports say that she may be replaced by attorney Robert Archie.

A few weeks back, on the Public School Notebook’s blog, I wrote about the baffling secrecy and lack of transparency around choosing the members of the School Reform Commission, the city/state oversight body for the Philadelphia public schools.

In fact, a School Reform Commission appointment is probably one of the least transparent processes in the School District of Philadelphia. Decided upon in backdoor rooms, at the sole discretion of either the Governor or the Mayor, lacking any written set of responsibilities and expectations, and largely absent public standards for avoiding ethical and financial conflicts of interest, the Commission appointments have long baffled most parents and education observers.

Unfortunately, if true, the departure of Sandra Dungee Glenn won't do much to alleviate those concerns. Here are a couple of reasons why:

(You can read a more straightforward version of this cross-posted in the brand new Philadelphia Public School Notebook blog which launched today on a new website delivering education news and comments by Philadelphia’s education activists.)

When I first read City Councilman James Kenney’s comments in the press blaming anti-casino activists for their Machiavellian tactics in hijacking the library campaign and seeking to upset the balance of power in city government, I initially thought "Huh? I entertain good conspiracy theories as much as the next person, but really . . . . "

But recent news about Pennsylvania’s efforts to link casinos and education has me wondering about how my different worlds as an education activist and at Asian Americans United are now colliding. So I'm now developing my own insane conspiracy theory – the Evil Plot To Use School Funding As The Basis To Justify Gambling and To Tie School Funding to Pennsylvania’s Ability to Generate Gambling Revenue Theory of the World.

Here’s the connections:

• First, Gov. Rendell appoints Rosemarie Greco to the School Reform Commission, possibly replacing long-time SRC Commissioner Sandra Dungee Glenn as chairwoman of the Commission.

• Greco, as the Governor knows, serves on the board of the Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust, landlord of the Gallery shopping mall, which is now in negotiations to lease to Foxwoods Casino.

• Then, Rendell announces a plan to legalize video poker machines to provide tuition relief for college.

Now I have nothing against Rosemarie Greco, who is by all accounts an august citizen of the city, but it’s a curious set of coincidences nonetheless. And hence my own Kenney-esque conspiracy theory: One could argue (as he did) that these are the same set of folks wanting to push gambling, and that like those pesky anti-casino activists manipulating the library issue (Kenney: "They're [anti-casino activists] using libraries because everybody likes libraries."), here we have casino proponents manipulating the education issue.

Could it be a plant to usurp educational goals with gambling ones?

It’s almost impossible to believe but this week the USDA announced that it planned to terminate a model school nutrition program for thousands of Philadelphia children.

The program’s elimination comes apparently because of its success and the request of other cities to have similar programs. The universal feeding program offers free breakfast and lunch to every child at a school where there is an overwhelming number of children and families in poverty (above 75%) – currently, that’s 202 public schools and 9 charter schools.

According to documents obtained by The Inquirer, the so-called Universal Feeding Program will no longer exist beginning in the 2010 school year.

The change would affect about 121,000 students getting free and reduced-price school meals. It also could cost the district $800,000 annually, and perhaps millions more.

"The implications of eliminating the Universal Feeding Program within the school district will have devastating . . . impacts," according to a written appeal sent last month by the state Department of Education to the USDA.

Written by Vonda Fekete, the department's director of child-nutrition programs, the appeal added that the termination would hurt "the children who depend upon the school district as the source, and sometimes the only source, of one of the basic necessities of life, which is food."

The link below demonstrates who really is at fault for our bad schools and how it effects our local economy

http://teacherscount.wordpress.com/2008/10/17/money-talks/

Today's Inky has a story about new School District CEO Arlene Ackerman's recent hires:

New Philadelphia schools chief Arlene Ackerman has surrounded herself with a diverse inner circle of educators picked from far and wide, shaking up a historically inbred district with fresh faces.

The 14 people Ackerman has tapped are seven women and seven men, most with classroom experience. They include a former Army colonel and a handful of ex-principals.

They come from around the country - New York, Detroit, Louisiana, Arizona, California.

Most are her former doctoral students from Columbia University or graduates of prestigious national programs she's attended herself.

"I am trying to put together a team, and I do get to pick my team," Ackerman said in an interview. "I'm bringing together a team that can work toward the vision we have for this school system."

A couple of clarifications to the Inky story:

• The Inky may be jumping the gun in saying that Dr. Ackerman's team is smaller than Vallas'. The Inky list doesn't include, for example, at least two new positions created with existing district personnel. At the very least before making such a claim, the Inky ought to have looked at a full list of new hires and compared them with what we knew from Vallas' time.

• While Dr. Ackerman is entitled to her team, the Inky could have pointed out that new hires were made without a search. People are still jittery and wary of the district's lack of transparency, and a search could have alleviated some fears about whether we're getting the best candidates for the position.

• Parents United specifically raised questions about the four special assistants, four new positions that earn $92,500, $90,000, $85,000 and $65,000 apiece.

Any thoughts?