'If at first you don't succeed, try, try again." And again. These words should be the motto for the Philadelphia school district, which has been on a restructuring kick for years. School reform has its own vocabulary list: clusters, small learning communities, regional offices, community service, metal detectors, uniforms, graduation requirements, privatization, state takeover. Now, we have the faith-based initiative.
Advocates of faith-based initiatives say that a religious institution can provide superior support for public school kids by infusing a dose of faith-based compassion into the secular character of public schools. Even though the term faith-based denotes something that is not merely religion-flavored, but religious at its base (would that be like soup base?), the programs would be, as the literature says, completely secular.
In Philadelphia, the School Reform Commission is overseeing the development of YouthNet programs, whose mission is to "increase community of faith partnerships with schools to increase student achievement and to help reduce violence in our schools and communities." Student achievement and violence reduction sound good. Urban Family Council President Betty Jean Wolfe explains the potential benefits.
"Kids are getting more help and more involvement from adults who care about them," she said. The programs would provide needed educational and climate support -- "more support than [the kids] get now."
The programs would fall into three spheres. Youth enrichment and development programs would take place between the hours of 3 and 6 p.m. They might include an after-school choir, a mentoring program or a Saturday morning program for students with disciplinary problems. Safety and crisis intervention programs would include the Safe Corridor Program, where local congregations can recruit members to provide supervision for students traveling to and from school.
Parent and community involvement programs would include Parent Patrols, a program that allows congregations to recruit parents to patrol school buildings. Organizations might be involved in programs from more than one sphere. The UFC, for example, provides adult and abstinence education in addition to coordinating a YouthNet center.
Philadelphia's kids need more support. Penn offers an abundance of programs to neighborhood schools. So do other organizations. But I would venture to say that even these are not enough.
Still, what does a faith-based initiative offer that an ordinary initiative leaves missing? In this year's State of the Union address the president said that it's "important to strengthen our communities by unleashing the compassion of America's religious institutions." The president implied that the government hinders the religious element in our country. He went on to ask the Congress to take his executive order that "opened billions of dollars in grant money to competition that includes faith-based charities," and to "codify this into law, so people of faith can know that the law will never discriminate against them again."
That's interesting, because I wasn't aware that the separation of church and state discriminated against people of faith. People of any faith can -- and I hope, do -- volunteer in schools as often as they want. So why does the government need to be involved? Can't people of faith form non-religiously affiliated groups, and use those organizations to receive government funding for their compassionate works?
Indeed, government funding of religious organizations itself raises the specter of the discrimination with which the president is so concerned. While I'm sure the membership of the Faith-Based Task Force has yet to be expanded, at present it leaves some religions unrepresented -- most prominently, the Archdiocese. I see Muslims, Jews, Episcopalians and Buddhists, but no Catholics. How about the International Society for Krishna Consciousness?
Let's not forget that money is being handed out here. It is likely that the fiscal agency monitoring all service providers will be entirely scrupulous. It is possible that no money will be wasted at all. But, come on, this is Philadelphia.
The school district has long been heavily into reform. The difference now is a sense of pervading optimism. Test scores are up, the chief executive officer is popular, and the motto, a threefold repetition of the phrase, "No excuses," is inspiring. Philadelphians may well look to their youngest citizens and realize that the battle is not over, and that we must keep fighting until victory. Our children need more counseling, academically and personally. But are we breaking with the traditions of our country's founders too easily?
If citizens want churches, mosques and synagogues to provide services for our city's children, why not fund them privately? If our faith is not powerful enough to compel us to give freely, then maybe American faith isn't as strong as the president says.
Danielle Nagelberg is a junior International Relations major from Philadelphia. Schuylkill Punch appears on Tuesdays.
