DN Editorial: The "Kill the SRC" fallacy

VOTERS won't be seeing a referendum question on abolishing the School Reform Commission on November's ballot, since City Council had too short a time between passing the resolution last week and the deadline for inclusion; the bill is still on Mayor Nutter's desk, waiting for a signature.

Maybe it will appear in May, but voters should pay attention now to what they'll see - and won't see.

They may see a nonbinding vote saying something like, "Should Philadelphia abolish the SRC?" What they won't see is the rest of the question that should be on there if Council were honest about the move making any difference: " . . . and elect a school board that has the power to raise property taxes?"

Yes, Council conveniently left out that part - or any other part that might help voters understand what abolishing the SRC actually means, such as what would be created in its place, and why that would make any difference to the financially hobbled district.

Being nonbinding, the referendum vote is essentially a public-opinion poll on the SRC's popularity, as lone Council dissenter Bill Greenlee called it.

Like we need a poll. The state board in charge of the messy business of running the schools without proper resources is never going to be anyone's BFF - particularly not the teachers union, which has been negotiating a contract for more than a year. The union, being asked for givebacks to help the district balance its budget, has been the driver of the referendum. They booed loudly when Council put the bill on hold in case it jeopardized the cigarette-tax vote in Harrisburg that would bring millions to the district. What changed Council's mind last week to bring it back is anyone's guess.

The issue of local control is an important one. But we have heard no arguments for why it's a better alternative. A local board could be either elected or appointed, but in neither instance would it have the authority to tax. Elsewhere, school boards have the authority to raise property taxes, but not in Philadelphia. And we doubt that City Council or the mayor is going to be willing to grant that. In which case, a local board will be able to do nothing that makes any difference to the amount of money the schools get.

The state took over the schools 13 years ago. It's hard to argue that the schools are in any better shape than they were before the takeover. But are they worse? It's important to remember that the very reason for the takeover was the precarious state of the schools and their funding: In 2001, the district had a $200 million deficit on its $1.7 billion budget, was facing a $1.5 billion deficit over five years and couldn't meet payroll.

This month, the schools opened with an $81 million deficit; its total budget is $2.3 billion.

As overseer, the state is accountable for the schools and the money it gets. Given its stinginess, imagine what would happen if it no longer felt accountable.

No one could say that the state takeover has been a success. But no one can say that local control would change things, either - at least where it counts: funding. In last week's action, Council pandered and punted. It did nothing to address the schools problem in any productive way.