Debates over the privatization of some of Philadelphia's public schools were taken into the courthouse last Thursday, when a lawsuit opposing the recent plans for reforms reached the federal appeals court.
The three-judge panel heard the case, which was brought against the state of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia School Reform Commission by a coalition of City Council members and a number of residents of the city.
The suit was filed in February of this year, just two months prior to the Commission's decision in April to privatize 42 of Philadelphia's struggling public schools.
The panel, which was led by the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Edward Becker, ensured both sides that a decision would be made within days or weeks, as opposed to the typical six month waiting period.
Nevertheless, this decision could not come soon enough for Alice Ballard, the lawyer representing the City Council and the parents filing the suit. To them, Ballard said that the issue involves a question of "fundamental rights."
Ballard and her clients believe that the state take-over -- and the subsequent decision to privatize -- violates the Home Rule Charter, a legislation that grants voters the right to have input in school system reforms.
"Our voting rights are fundamental," Ballard said at the federal courthouse last week. "As residents, under the Home Rule Charter, we have the right to decide what changes will be made [to the school system]."
However, the panel -- which also included federal appeal court judges Theodore McKee and Morton Greenberg -- seemed reluctant to agree. After all, their opposition to Ballard's claims will put the federal district court in the middle of a controversy over state legal and legislative policies.
In March, U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Buckwalter had deferred the suit, claiming that it was not the federal courts' obligation to rule on state laws and cases which have not been settled at the state level.
Additionally, Becker said that he was unable to thoroughly grasp the "fundamental rights" claim by Ballard.
"The fact is that for a good part of history voters have never had the right to vote [on school decisions]," Becker said. "It seems to me, what the legislature giveth, the legislature taketh away."
Becker added that the power to vote upon reforms was instead in the hands of the School Board members. In fact, it was only turned over to the mayor in 1998, when the most significant recent Home Rule Charter revisions were made.
However, Ballard and her plaintiffs claim that the "arbitrary" legislative action to take over the schools was done merely to "retaliate against the city of Philadelphia," making the actions unconstitutional and therefore, a matter for the federal appeals court.
Carl Singley, the attorney representing Pennsylvania Governor Mark Schweiker and the Philadelphia School Reform Commission, called those claims "nothing but a desperate attempt by the plaintiffs to involve the federal government in a local policy political dispute." He argued that the federal court should do nothing more than affirm the district court's decision and leave the case in the hands of the city.
"This is purely a matter of state and local concern," Singley said at the hearing last Thursday, "It's a matter of policy and how public education is maintained, managed and funded in the City of Philadelphia."
Panel Judge Greenberg voiced his concern in response to Singley's claim that the case was merely a matter of local politics.
"[If it is only a local concern] then why is it necessary [for the state and district courts] to abstain?," the judge asked. "The idea of abstaining is that there are issues that cannot be resolved [in that particular court]."
Greenberg's question will be on the minds of all three judges and those involved in the lawsuit as they all anxiously await the upcoming decision.
