The past should inform school district reform

With a nearly $300 million deficit, a leadership transition, and rapidly-unfolding plans for a comprehensive governance overhaul, the School District of Philadelphia faces challenges that are unprecedented in its nearly 200-year history. The "Blueprint for Reforming Philadelphia's Public Schools" proposes one course for navigating the rough seas ahead by focusing on two major goals: safe, high-achieving schools for all kids, and the elimination of the district's deficit by 2014. The Blueprint's suggested remedies include a decreased reliance on the district's central office; new providers of educational services; an expansion of nontraditional public-school options, including charters; and an accountability system intended to expand high-performing schools and shutter bad ones.

This proposal has been hotly debated since its release in April, and rightly so: we can't afford to get it wrong. The good news is that Philadelphia needn't look far for important lessons learned. The district embarked on a similar reform in the early 2000s that was, at the time, the nation's largest experiment in decentralizing public education. Forty-five of the district's lowest-performing schools were managed by seven for-profit and nonprofit organizations, including two universities; and an additional 21 low-performing schools were "restructured" by the district. All schools involved in the reform received additional resources.

Results from that era of school reform were mixed. A joint study by RAND and Research for Action (RFA) revealed no effect on reading and math for schools overseen by external providers, while there were significantly positive effects on reading and math in district-run schools. Other large districts have decentralized the governance of schools in ways quite similar to the proposed Blueprint. How can the experiences of these districts, as well as our own, inform our deliberations and actions going forward?

Are adequate resources available? New York City has received an infusion of more than $3 billion since it embarked on its governance overhaul in 2002; Chicago Public Schools increased funding by more than 33 percent from 2002-09 while implementing a similar reform plan.

Philadelphia's five-year projected deficit, on the other hand, is north of $1.1 billion. What is the likelihood of local and state funds coming together to garner the resources needed to successfully implement a reform of this magnitude?

Can an independent, robust accountability mechanism be implemented? How will an accountability office be staffed and supported to provide independent, ongoing assessment of school performance?

Can we ensure equitable access to high-quality schools? Research on school-choice models has consistently shown that choice systems serve some students better than others. The proposed reforms will test the system even further. How will Philadelphia school leaders guard against inequity in enrollment and school choice, particularly in the face of so many public-school closings?

Honest answers to these questions should be a prerequisite to restructuring the School District of Philadelphia. As the new superintendent transitions into office and the options for reform continue to be examined, we urge all stakeholders to carefully consider these issues as specifically as possible.