City schools not pleased with plans for takeover

Although it remains highly likely that Gov. Mark Schweiker will soon decide to privatize at least part of Philadelphia's ailing school district, many of the city's educators remain hostile to the idea.

Edison Schools Inc., a for-profit education company, has been studying the city's public schools since August after being hired by former governor Tom Ridge to develop solutions for the debt-ridden and underachieving district. The company is due to present its final report to Schweiker on Monday.

After receiving the report, Schweiker will have one month to reach an agreement with Philadelphia on how to proceed, after which the state will automatically assume control of the district if no deal is signed.

But with the looming prospect of Edison assuming control of at least part of the district, many Philadelphia educators have said they want to keep capitalism out of education.

"I don't like it, period," said Alan Liebowitz, principal of Philadelphia Regional High School. "One of the reasons I'm still in education after so many years is that I believe in public education as the great equalizer."

And Liebowitz is not alone in his hostility to the idea. The Philadelphia Federation of Teachers has come down strongly against any form of privatization as an answer to the district's woes. According to Dee Phillips, assistant to PFT President Ted Kirsch, the union is worried that such a move might jeopardize the jobs of many Philadelphia educators.

"We are firmly against privatization," Phillips said. "There is no question about that. History has shown us that privatization does mean the loss of jobs."

According to Henry Levin, director of Columbia University's National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Baltimore had an especially bad experience with a similar company called Educational Alternatives Inc., in the 1990s.

"The schools receive a lot more money for special education students than other students," Levin said. Education Alternatives "went in the opposite direction and hired college students to work with the special education students."

Levin said that Baltimore city officials and teachers saw this as sacrificing the quality of student education to greed.

"What troubled people was not just doing that as a kind of professional misjudgment, but also a feeling that that was one of the major ways they figured out to make profits," Levin said.

Edison officials have said that they have no intention of adopting a similar policy toward special-needs children. But Liebowitz said that he thought education would come second to profit with Edison.

"Why would they want to even deal with the special needs kids if they could farm them out somewhere else?" Liebowitz asked.

John Frangipani, the principal at Central East Middle School, said he has faith in the public school system and believes privatization would compromise Philadelphia's educational mission.

"My real feeling is that public schools should remain public," Frangipani said. "I don't feel that private schools are the answer. When you put a bottom line on education you are looking at the cost and not the child."

Phillips also questioned the depth of Edison's commitment to education versus its commitment to profit.

"How will they treat our special needs kids?" Phillips asked.

But concerns over the motives of Edison and companies like it are not the only issues the company will have to overcome in order to succeed in Philadelphia. According to Levin, no private education company has yet to turn a profit, and Levin said he did not know if they ever will.

"My thoughts are, you know, if we were going to run an individual school, we could make a profit," Levin said. "When you're talking about a corporate approach, you carry a huge overhead cost. It hasn't been shown yet" that an education company can make a profit.

Levin also said that such schools tend to have a high turn-over rate of staff.

"I think in general the stance of teachers is that they do not like this idea," Levin said. "However, it depends on what teachers you're referring to. What we do know is that one of the challenges that Edison has faced has been high teacher turnover."

Edison spokesman Adam Tucker did not return repeated phone calls yesterday. However, Gretchen Toner, a spokeswoman for Pennsylvania's Department of Education, denied that teacher sentiment was universally against the idea of privatization.

"I think it's kind of a generalization to say that that sentiment exists throughout education," Toner said. "There are obviously a lot of educators out there who think Edison is doing a great job."

Furthermore, Toner said that she had already noticed a great change in the quality of schools in the Chester Upland district near Philadelphia, which Edison took over earlier this year.

"I went out there on the first day of school and just the physical changes in the school alone were amazing," Toner said. "There's already a different feeling."

But city educators still aren't sure about the benefits that Edison and other companies promise. According to Harold Adams, principal at Roberts Vaux Middle School, that the uncertainty of Edison's role in Schweiker's solution is unclear is another reason to worry.

"I don't think that's good because we need to make progress with all our schools," Adams said. "We are a large school district, and if we're going to have children make progress and look at the kind of progress they're making, we need to have uniformity."

But whether educators in Philadelphia like the idea of an Edison takeover or not, it seems to be a certainty that the company will be given a role in the future of the city's public education system. Schweiker is expected to announce his policy decision next week, and while Toner would not specify the role Edison will play, she did emphasize the governor's support of privatization.

"Governor Schweiker has said from the get-go that privatization is on the table," Toner said.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.