DN Editorial: Tribal warfare

A STATE hearing on education funding Tuesday held at the Franklin Institute often seemed not so much a hearing as a temporary détente among warring factions. Overseen by Reps. Mike Sturla and Brian Sims, of the House Democratic Policy committee, the proceedings tapped a variety of voices representing charters, parents, the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers and the Philadelphia School Partnership. These factions are rarely in the same room together, and even more rarely agree on public-education fixes.

One area that got consensus among the committee and the audience was the idea of creating a state-funding formula for schools. Ours is among the few states that don't take into account differences in wealth, achievement and size among school districts to make sure that all schools have equitable funding.

But after that, there was little agreement. Maybe nothing illustrates the tribal warfare of public education like charters, which generated much conversation Tuesday. The 1997 law that created charters posited that such schools could become laboratories where best educational practices could be adopted and brought to scale by district schools.

Not only has this not happened, but the reality is even more fraught. That's because even if the majority of the state's 157 charter schools were successful, no structure exists that analyzes or monitors charters' triumphs or failures. The state Department of Education collects charter annual reports, but the hosting districts are responsible for most of the collection and monitoring of the charter schools. That means that there is no single oversight for the state's charter schools - and individual districts rarely have the resources to adequately oversee charters. The Philadelphia School District has 80 charters, and six people in its charter office. Statewide, charter enrollment has grown from 11,413 students in 1999-00 to 105,036 in 2011-12. But no one in the state can answer definitely how many charters have succeeded, and how many struggle.

Meanwhile, teachers unions and their supporters often claim that charter schools are a conspiracy to dismantle traditional public education, and often suggest that the school district can't approve charters fast enough. The fact is, the district effectively loses money with every charter seat (among other reasons, because the district must cover the cost of private-school students who migrate to charters). The School Reform Commission does approve charter expansions and renewals, but state law prohibits it from imposing enrollment caps.

It's clear that much needs to be fixed in education. But another thing is clear: Inside the room at the Franklin Institute were at least 100 people, committee members and advocates, all of whom have a passion for figuring out how to make public education work.

But the internecine battles among the education tribes seems to obliterate the quest for how to best educate our children in the 21st century.

Maybe if the battles stopped and these factions found ways to work together, what seems insurmountable might actually turn out to be easy.