Ferrick: Charter school debate simply sideshow to real education issues

It looks like the debate over education in Philadelphia is becoming an either/or choice between charters and district-run schools. If you favor one, you must be against the other.

I hope the candidates for mayor don't fall into this trap, though there are signs some are anxious to.  At their first joint appearance last week, five candidates took shots at the sixth, Sen. Anthony Hardy Williams, who is a charter supporter, for deviating from the view that no new charters should be opened.

The debate came at the same time the School Reform Commission was about to vote on applications for 39 new charters. The SRC ended up voting to open five, thus infuriating both pro- and anti-charter forces -- not to mention Gov. Wolf, who didn't want any new charters approved, and Republican House Speaker Mike Turzai, who wanted the SRC to approve many more. (Note to SRC: If you enrage everyone, you must be doing something right.)

The question before the SRC wasn't about its position pro or con on charters. It centered on a narrower financial issue. Can the district, which is facing an $80 million deficit, afford more charters now?

This latest impasse has been a godsend to charter opponents, who don't want the district to open anymore charters. Period.

Chief among them is the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers. Charters are a clear and present danger to the union -- because these schools do not currently have unionized work forces.

More charters mean fewer PFT members. If the trend of the last 10 years -- rapid expansion of charter enrollment -- continues for the next 10, the union's membership and influence will shrink significantly.

The union has numerous political allies, a sharp legal team, and is willing to crank up the hysteria machine by framing the issue as pro-kid vs. anti-kid. We're back to that either/or equation.

Because Williams is so publicly pro-charter, his opponents see an opening for attack, while they mute their personal positions on charters to just whack Williams for his. It's not a far leap from "No new charters now!" to "No new charters ever!" Last week, Nelson Diaz seemed quickest to jump to that position -- or at least to that rhetorical flourish.

Before the rest of them follow Diaz over the cliff, let's consider some facts.

This campaign shouldn't be about educational choice because that debate is over. Parents want choice and they have choices because of charters and the state business-tax break program that gives subsidies to parents who want to send their children to parochial and private schools.

The public schools no longer have a near-monopoly on education. They have competition. One way to deal with that reality is to become nimble and compete -- that's the option favored by Superintendent William Hite. Another way to deal with it is to make like Cher and try to turn back time. Resist all changes and go back to the days of yore.

I'd call that delusional if it wasn't for the fact that the PFT is so good and so relentless at advancing that agenda.

The reality is that parents with children in charter schools are happy, even ecstatic, with their choice.  In a 2010 poll, the last data available, 95 percent of charter parents said they were satisfied with their children's education, compared to a 45 percent among district parents. (Critics counter that charter operators have duped parents, who don't know what good is, a patronizing view if there ever was one.)

Assertions to the contrary, charters are not enclaves of wealthy, white kids.  The percentage of white students in charters is the same as in district-run schools (14%), which means 86 percent of children in charters are black, Asian or Latino. In fact, the percentage of African-American kids in charters (62%) exceeds the percentage of black students in district schools (52%).

There are more well-off and middle-class students in charters, but 66 percent of the kids still qualify as economically disadvantaged (compared to 86 percent of district students).

Foundation myths notwithstanding, the motivating force behind charters in this city was with mostly black parents and politicians who felt the public school system was not serving their children and was incapable of changing.

That sentiment was true in the late 1990s, when the charter movement got off the ground here, and is still true today, despite Hite's best efforts.

In short, it isn't wise for the mayoral candidates to pander on the charter issue. It isn't wise for them to embrace the either/or equation. School choice has a strong constituency among parents.

What the candidates should be doing is telling us how they will solve the district's central problem -- persistent financial stress (and if they answer: "I'll go to Harrisburg and lobby for more money!" hit them over the head with a Nerf bat).

Their opinions aside, mayors have no direct control over the schools. They do have control over the purse strings. They can increase taxes or divert existing taxes to provide more local money to the district. That would be real.

The alternative is to wait two or three or more years until Harrisburg gets its act together on both a fair school funding formula and increased aid to education.

So, the question finally is simple: As mayor, will you put your money where your mouth is? The rest is just a sideshow.

Tom Ferrick Jr., a former Inquirer reporter and columnist and the founder of the news site Metropolis, is writing regularly on the 2015 mayoral race for The Next Mayor.