DN Editorial: Measuring the value of summer school

HARRISBURG and Philadelphia are strange bedfellows at best, hostile partners at worst.

Unfortunately, the action on the state budget in the last few months suggests that when it comes to bedfellows, Harrisburg considers the city as it would a case of bedbugs.

A number of theories explain the relationship: The city and the region is a big driver of the state economy; with a high poverty population, it's also a big driver of budget needs. Until recently, with a Phillly-centric governor and legislative power brokers calling the shots, the balance of power favored Philadelphia.

But now, it's no longer Philly time. There's a new governor, and many of the former power brokers with Philadelphia roots are indicted or weakened by political shifts. Look no further than state budget cuts to see how the city is faring.

So far, the big losers are apt to be the city's schoolchildren, since the Philadelphia School District was one of the hardest hit by the state budget ax. As we've already pointed out, the state education budget cuts hit the poorest districts in the state the hardest; the wealthiest districts got the smallest cuts.

That calls for action - and we don't mean louder whining about being a victim. It does mean making sure we're on top of our game. And when it comes to the schools, that's not always the case. Everything from Arlene Ackerman's salary and bonuses to questions about how district contracts are handled have given critics plenty of fodder.

Summer school may be next. Few would argue that summer academic programs aren't worthwhile investments. Students can end up better prepared for the next grade, or make up credits they lack. And a longer school year is part of the Obama administration's goals, to level the playing field with other countries around the world that are outperforming us academically.

The school district's summer-school program has become more rigorous under Ackerman; last year, more than 58,000 students enrolled for the 18-day program; the budget was $39 million.

The problem is that fewer than half of the students bothered to finish the program; only 24,500 students attended at least 16 of the 18 days.

(There are two parts to the program, credit-makeup and enrichment, which is less academic.)

This year, after City Council asked the district to cut $10 million from the program, the district cut $5 million. Councilman Bill Green has also pushed for the program to focus solely on the kids that need to make up credits. This year's program, which started last week, had enrolled 28,000. By Friday, 24,500 were in attendance. If attendance rates track last year's, many students will miss its benefits, and this could end up being a very expensive program. This year, the 18-day program costs $28 million.

The district has attempted to evaluate the program on many key points. But in the nine-page evaluation of 2010's program, based on a survey of those who taught or attended, attendance figures were glossed over; data was reported only on those students who attended at least five days, not on the number who completed. Surely, the value of an educational program must be measured in part by its cost - and there's a big difference between a program costing $28 million to educate 28,000 students and one that may end up teaching half that number. That might mean a policy change that would provide stronger mandates for attendance. Although education costs can be complex, the district should not shy away from questions about program costs - especially while it's coping with such a large deficit.

It owes these answers not only to Harrisburg, but also to the taxpayers footing the bill. *