Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-To-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia

Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia

Jolley Bruce Christman, Research for Action Amy Rhodes, Research for Action

June 2002

Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia iii

CONTENTS

List of Tables, Figures, and Sidebars...... iv About the Children Achieving Challenge...... v Evaluation of Children Achieving ...... v Acknowledgments ...... v Children Achieving’s Theory of Action...... vi Additional Reading on Children Achieving ...... vi Authors’ Note ...... vi Children Achieving Evaluation 1995-2001: Research Methods ...... vii Introduction ...... 1 Why This Report is Important Now...... 2 Organization of the Report...... 4 Philadelphia and its Schools ...... 11 The City ...... 11 The Schools ...... 12 Civic Infrastructure and Community Groups ...... 14 Perceptions of the Schools ...... 14 Powerful Messages with Many Interpretations ...... 17 The Children Achieving Plan: “Comprehensive” and “Common Sense” ...... 18 Multiple Interpretations of Children Achieving ...... 20 Managerial ...... 22 Redistribution of Resources...... 25 Democratic Revitalization...... 26 Teaching and Learning ...... 27 Market...... 27 Discussion...... 29 Children Achieving: A Calculated Risk ...... 33 A Calculated Risk ...... 33 Strategy 1: Align Resources ...... 34 Strategy 2: Improve Student Performance ...... 37 Test Scores Went Up BUT… ...... 40 Strategy 3: Seek Increases in City and State Funding Through the Political Process...... 41 Strategy 4: Build a Coalition of Support Among Business Elites ...... 45 Strategy 5: Build a Grassroots Movement of Parents and Community Members ...... 49 Strategy 6: Use Legal Action to Push for Equitable Funding...... 53 The Missing Strategy: Engage Frontline Educators ...... 54 Discussion...... 55 Lessons for the Future ...... 57 Common Ground ...... 57 Lessons About Coalition Building...... 60 Appendix A. Research Methods...... 61 iv Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia

LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES, AND SIDEBARS

Table 1. Competing Theories of Action ...... 23

Figure 1. Percent of Students Scoring at or Above Basic in Math by School Level, SAT-9, 1996-2000...38 Figure 2. Percent of Students Scoring at or Above Basic in Reading by School Level, SAT-9, 1996-2000 ...... 38 Figure 3. Percent of Students Scoring at or Above Basic in Science by School Level, SAT-9, 1996-2000 ...... 39 Figure 4. Sources of Information About the Philadelphia Public Schools ...... 48

Sidebar 1. Children Achieving Timeline ...... 5 Sidebar 2. The Children Achieving 10-Point Action Design ...... 18 Sidebar 3. School Choice as a Theory of Change: Governor Ridge’s Education Reform Proposals ...... 28

Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia v

ABOUT THE CHILDREN EVALUATION OF ACHIEVING CHALLENGE CHILDREN ACHIEVING

In February 1995, shortly after the School In 1996, the Consortium for Policy Research Board of Philadelphia adopted Children in Education (CPRE) at the University of Achieving as a systemic reform agenda to Pennsylvania and its partner, Research for improve the Philadelphia public schools, Action (RFA), were charged by the Children the Annenberg Foundation designated Achieving Challenge with the evaluation of Philadelphia as one of a few American Children Achieving. Between the 1995- cities to receive a five-year $50 million 1996 and 2000-2001 school years, CPRE Annenberg Challenge grant to improve and RFA researchers interviewed hundreds public education. of teachers, principals, parents, students, District officials, and civic leaders; sat in on Among the conditions for receiving the meetings where the plan was designed, grant was a requirement to raise two debated, and revised; observed its matching dollars ($100 million over five implementation in classrooms and schools; years) for each one received from the conducted two systemwide surveys of Annenberg Foundation and to create an teachers; and carried out independent independent management structure to analyses of the District’s test results and provide program, fiscal, and evaluation other indicators of system performance. An oversight of the grant. In Philadelphia, a outline of the research methods used by business organization, Greater Philadelphia CPRE and RFA is included in this report. A First, assumed this responsibility, and with listing of the reports on Children Achieving it, the challenge of building and sustaining currently available from CPRE is found civic support for the improvement of public below. There will be one additional education in the city. summary report released in the coming months. It will be available when it is Philadelphia’s Children Achieving was a released on the CPRE web site at sweeping systemic reform initiative. www.cpre.org. Systemic reform eschews a school-by- school approach to reform and relies on coherent policy, improved coordination of ACKNOWLEDGMENTS resources and services, content and performance standards, decentralization of The authors would like to acknowledge the decision-making, and accountability contributions of Theresa Luhm, Elaine mechanisms to transform entire school Simon, and Elizabeth Blair. systems. Led by a dynamic superintendent and central office personnel, Children Achieving was the first attempt by an urban district to test systemic reform in practice.

vi Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia

• School Leadership and Reform: Case CHILDREN ACHIEVING’S Studies of Philadelphia Principals (May THEORY OF ACTION 2001)

To assess the progress and effects of a • Contradictions and Control in Systemic comprehensive reform such as Children Reform: The Ascendancy of the Central Achieving, it is essential to understand its Office in Philadelphia Schools (August “theory of action,” that is, the assumptions 2001) made about what actions or behaviors will produce the desired effects. A summary of • Clients, Consumers, or Collaborators? the Children Achieving theory of action Parents and their Roles in School follows: Reform During Children Achieving, 1995-2000 (August 2001) Given high academic standards and strong incentives to focus their efforts and • Powerful Ideas, Modest Gains: Five resources; more control over school Years of Systemic Reform in resource allocations, organization, policies, Philadelphia Middle Schools (December and programs; adequate funding and 2001) resources; more hands-on leadership and high-quality support; better coordination of • An Analysis of the Effect of Children resources and programs; schools Achieving on Student Achievement in restructured to support good teaching and Philadelphia Elementary Schools encourage improvement of practice; rich (February 2002) professional development of their own choosing; and increased public • Civic Engagement and Urban School understanding and support; the teachers Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons and administrators of the Philadelphia from Philadelphia (June 2002) schools will develop, adopt, or adapt instructional technologies and patterns of behavior that will help all children reach the AUTHORS’ NOTE District’s high standards. The research reported herein was conducted by the Consortium for Policy ADDITIONAL READING Research in Education and Research for ON CHILDREN Action. Funding for this work was provided by Greater Philadelphia First and the Pew ACHIEVING Charitable Trusts. Opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors, and do The following publications on the not necessarily reflect the views of Greater evaluation of Children Achieving are Philadelphia First, the Pew Charitable currently available through CPRE at (215) Trusts, or the institutional partners of 573-0700, or email your requests to CPRE. [email protected].

• Recruiting and Retaining Teachers: Keys to Improving the Philadelphia Public Schools (May 2001)

Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia vii

Qualitative research included: CHILDREN ACHIEVING interviews of teachers, principals, EVALUATION 1995- parents, outside partners who worked in the schools, and in a few cases, 2001: RESEARCH students; observations of classrooms, small learning communities meetings, METHODS professional development sessions, and

school leadership team meetings;

The Consortium for Policy Research in review of school documents (School Education and Research for Action used Improvement Plan, budget, etc.); and the research methods indicated below in intensive, multi-year case study their evaluation of the Children Achieving research in a subset of 25 schools (13 Challenge. elementary, 5 middle, and 7 high schools). 1. 1996-2000 school-level data on indicators that made up the District’s 5. Interviews of central office and cluster Performance Responsibility Index staff and observations of meetings and including student scores on the SAT-9, other events. student promotion and graduation rates, student attendance, and teacher 6. Interviews of 40 Philadelphia civic attendance. leaders (including political leaders, leaders in the funding community, 2. Two census surveys of teachers, the first public education advocates, journalists, in 1997 and the second in 1999. and business leaders). Teachers were asked about reform implementation, school conditions, and In addition, numerous other studies teaching practices. There was a greater conducted during Children Achieving than 60 percent response rate on both informed this evaluation. These included: surveys. Bruce Wilson and Dick Corbett’s three-year interview study of middle school students; 3. School indicators describing teacher an evaluation of the Philadelphia Urban and student characteristics in 1996 and Systemic Initiative in Mathematics and 1999 obtained from the School District Science conducted by Research for Action; of Philadelphia’s Information Services. the Philadelphia Education Longitudinal These data included school enrollment, Study conducted by Frank Furstenberg at number of teachers, the proportion of the University of Pennsylvania; and the students qualifying for free or reduced- evaluation of the William Penn price lunch, among other indicators. Foundation’s initiative in two clusters, These data were used for descriptive conducted by the National Center for purposes and in hierarchical linear and Restructuring Education, Schools, and logistic regression models to help Teaching. understand the relationships among reform implementation, student outcomes, and school characteristics.

4. Five years (1995-1996 through 1999- 2000) of qualitative research in 49 schools (26 elementary, 11 middle, and 12 high schools) in 14 clusters.

Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia 1

But in June 2000, in the face of a huge INTRODUCTION budget deficit, declining support from newly-elected Mayor John Street, and the n 1994, David Hornbeck came to threat of a state takeover, Superintendent Philadelphia with a bold plan to do Hornbeck resigned, rather than oversee the what “no city with any significant dismantling of his vision for a system in number and diversity of students” had which all children would achieve at high Iever done before: help “a large levels. Within a year, Pennsylvania proportion of its young people achieve at 1 contracted with Edison Schools, the largest high levels.” Trained as an attorney and for-profit provider of educational services minister, Hornbeck had served as in the country, to review the District and Commissioner of education in Maryland provide recommendations for a major and had been one of the architects of overhaul of the city’s public schools. By Kentucky’s Education Reform Act, a December 2001, the Governor and Mayor standards-based reform effort that coupled Street agreed to terms for the state to take school-level accountability with significant direct control over Philadelphia’s public increases in funding for public education. school system — a move originally Philadelphia’s corporate and civic leaders contested by Mayor Street. Under the and its Democratic mayor, Ed Rendell, “friendly” takeover, a five-member School were impressed with Hornbeck’s Reform Commission (SRC) — three credentials and saw standards and members appointed by the Governor and accountability as a potentially winning two by the Mayor — replaced the Board of formula for Philadelphia’s poorly Education. The SRC quickly took the performing schools. They looked to him to unprecedented step of requesting turn the system around. proposals from private firms, institutions, and community organizations to perform a Shortly after the Philadelphia School Board sweeping array of central office functions. adopted Hornbeck’s Children Achieving At the time that this report went to press, reform program, the Annenberg Edison Schools had assumed the role of Foundation designated Philadelphia as one “senior management consultant” and the of three American cities to receive a five- SRC had chosen a variety of sponsoring year $50 million Annenberg Challenge 2 organizations, including national for-profit grant. (See Sidebar 1 at the end of this education management organizations and section for a timeline of the Children community groups, to run 70 of the Achieving initiative.) The stars seemed District’s lowest performing schools. aligned for real educational improvement. One local foundation staff member Ironically, although Children Achieving was expressed the prevailing view: “We believe publicly discredited by local and state that if not now in Philadelphia, then 3 leaders, the reform had made headway when?” during its six years of implementation. Elementary school students showed significant improvement on the SAT-9 test 1 School District of Philadelphia, Children Achieving (the Stanford Achievement Test-Ninth strategic action design. Philadelphia: Author, 1995, p. i. Edition), the District’s standardized test measure. And public education had 2 For a further discussion of the role of the Children become a front-page story in a city where Achieving Challenge and Greater Philadelphia First in there had been apathy and little discussion. Children Achieving, see the section entitled, Public reporting of school-by-school test “Children Achieving: A Calculated Risk.” data and data disaggregated by 3 Foundation staff, 1996. race/ethnicity and income level had set the

2 Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia

stage for educators to be held accountable actually shrinking — tried to build the for results. Community organizing and a public support necessary to convince public information campaign had lawmakers that an increase in spending encouraged greater public engagement. In would be a sound investment. We tell the fact, some believed that the District’s story from the perspectives of Philadelphia progress during Children Achieving had civic elites. Interviews with more than 40 of been remarkable and were incredulous that Philadelphia’s leaders from government, there was not broader acknowledgment of business, civic organizations, higher Philadelphia’s achievements: education, the media, and the School District during the period January 2000- Philadelphia made a remarkable amount of January 2001 serve as the basis for our progress masked by political turmoil in the account. (See Appendix A for a discussion District, city, and state. And it made of our research methods.) progress even with union opposition, with a split board against David, and with critics From its inception, Children Achieving was of David at the city and state levels. a calculated risk by District leaders who believed that they could effect sufficient Philadelphia launched an almost decade- gains in student achievement to convince long effort to restructure its schools into the public and political leaders to increase smaller communities. There were the dollar investment in the city’s schools. demonstrable results in improvements on Initially, the Children Achieving reform plan the accountability index. Attendance was championed by key sectors of the increased, showing greater student community — the business and foundation engagement. There was an increase in communities, civic leaders, and the mayor. performance at lower levels of progress — However, a deeper reading of the interview with the students below basic and basic. transcripts revealed that, in fact, our The creation of organizations like the informants had varying and sometimes Alliance Organizing Project shows competing interpretations of the reform’s progress. And along with that, efforts to major ideas and how those ideas would develop standards at the local level work together to effect improvement in demonstrated progress. Teachers were schools and student achievement. Our also given the tools to put standards into research shows how difficult it is to create practice with curriculum frameworks.4 resilient civic coalitions that persist in the face of the harsh circumstances of Why were the District’s accomplishments inadequate funding. It signals the problems not more widely recognized? What was it that arise for reform leaders as they try to about the vision, strategies, and style of communicate easily-understood messages reform leaders; the reform plan and its about complex ideas like standards, implementation; the views and actions of accountability, and decentralization and as government, business, and civic leaders; they report student progress on leading and the larger economic and political achievement indicators within a context of context that produced a shift toward a very low absolute performance. radically different model of school reform? WHY THIS REPORT IS In this report, we examine how reform IMPORTANT NOW leaders — faced with the daunting task of improving student achievement while the A premise of Ambassador Annenberg’s dollars available for public education were unprecedented gift to American public education was that “something should be 4 Civic leader, October 2000.

Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia 3 done to improve [public schools] and that Public schools in Philadelphia are about to something could be done,”5 and that a enter into a new educational experiment, city’s leaders and citizens were key to the one that puts school governance in the success of its schools. hands of the state and involves private enterprise and community groups on an Schools would improve only when unprecedented scale in the running of communities realized it was in their own central office functions and the operation best interests to take the tough political of schools. Is civic engagement in public steps necessary to provide a good schools even relevant under these education for every child. They would circumstances? Historians and political improve when private citizens and scientists who have researched this institutions became willing to invest question would argue, “Yes.” In their study substantial amounts of time, energy, and of civic engagement in public schools in 11 money in public education — not just for cities, Clarence Stone and his colleagues their own children, but for “other people’s” found that educational improvement children as well. Annenberg hoped his own faltered when there was low civic capacity financial commitment would galvanize this for reforming schools.8 In two of the cities nationwide effort in localities around the studied, schools were governed by court country, with his dollars matching new ones order as a result of desegregation cases. In that local planners would raise.6 both cases, public engagement was low in part because citizens considered the The Annenberg Challenge’s emphasis on schools to be the domain of the courts. Will civic engagement was well justified to Philadelphians and others sit back and many who have studied urban school relegate improvement of the city’s schools reform and analyzed its failures in cities to the School Reform Commission? To such as Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, San date, state takeovers of urban districts have Antonio, San Francisco, and Seattle. These proved moderately successful at educational policy analysts argue that deep ameliorating financial crises and cleaning and enduring reform requires more than a up graft. Thus far, they have not succeeded strong leader with a plausible plan. Leaders in improving educational programs and of a city’s important institutions and raising student achievement.9 grassroots groups must offer critical support. Additionally, educational theorists It is likely that the public will remains a currently argue that reformers must be crucial factor in reform’s success — no flexible in their development of reform matter what the governance structure. The approaches. They believe that no single past offers some lessons about how to approach to educational reform offers a accomplish this. This report offers the sufficiently robust strategy to turn failing larger public a framework for evaluating urban school districts around.7 what the new players in Philadelphia schools propose and undertake. (We believe the framework is also useful to 5 B. Cervone and J. McDonald, Preliminary reflections on the Annenberg Challenge: A working paper drawn from its first projects. Providence, RI: 8 C. Stone, Civic capacity and urban education. Annenberg Challenge, 1999, p. 1. Unpublished manuscript, 2001, available at http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gupt/stone/prob.html. 6 Ibid, p. 4. 9 K. Wong and P. Jain, “City and state takeover as a 7 P. Hill, J. Harvey, and C. Campbell, It takes a city: school reform strategy.” Paper presented at the Getting serious about urban school reform. annual meeting of the Association for Public Policy Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2000. Analysis and Management, Seattle, WA, November 2000.

4 Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia

citizens in other cities.) During the coming reformers so that the public can protect the months, a variety of strategies for interests of the community’s children and improving schools will emerge. Each of increase the likelihood that they will benefit these proposed reforms is, in fact, a theory from the proposed reforms. of action about how to improve education. Schon and Argyris elaborated and used the ORGANIZATION OF THE concept of theory of action in their work on 10 REPORT the organizational change process. A theory of action is the assumptions and We begin with a description of Philadelphia beliefs that leaders hold about how change and its schools at the time of will occur; in the case of educational Superintendent Hornbeck’s arrival. What reform, how reform components will effect was the educational situation prior to the desired improvements in schools, Children Achieving? What were the classrooms, and students. existing relationships between the District

and key sectors of the city, including In this report, we discuss the theory of business, government, and civic action underlying Children Achieving at organizations? We also discuss our length. We also identify other theories informants’ varying perspectives on the about how to raise student achievement challenges that confronted the city. Their that emerged in our interviews with city different views on Philadelphia’s problems leaders. We do this so as to make these and their relationship to public education various approaches explicit. In order for set the stage for differing assessments of citizens to assess the potential of proposed Children Achieving’s success. reforms and the success of enacted ones, it is important that they understand Children Achieving was an ambitious and reformers’ assumptions about the causal comprehensive reform plan. We outline the links between a reform’s design, its plan and discuss how its elements were activities, and its goals. It is important to intended to work together to improve ask such questions as: What do reformers schools and student achievement. In order believe about how their proposals will to understand civic leaders’ assessments of effect improvement? Are their assumptions Children Achieving’s impact, it is important logical? Are the proposals robust and to know how they interpreted its strategic? Are their theories of action foundational ideas and key components. based on past experience, empirical How did various groups make sense of the evidence, or ideology? And questions plan articulated by District leaders? How about the values underlying reform did they think it was supposed to work? proposals and their attention to issues of We then detail six strategies of District social justice and equity are extremely leaders to build public support for the important in a city where more than 80 reforms. We reveal the effects of District percent of students are children of color leaders’ steps and missteps as they sought who live in poverty. Whose interests are to gain more funding for schools and the being served by proposed approaches to larger contextual factors that constrained reform? In short, it is important to their visions and strategies. There were understand and question the theories of significant accomplishments during action underlying the changes proposed by Children Achieving and there are important lessons from its disappointments. Finally, 10 C. Argyris and D.A. Schon, Theory in practice: we summarize these from the perspectives Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: of our interviewees in order to define Jossey-Bass, 1974. common ground for moving forward.

Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia 5

SIDEBAR 1. CHILDREN ACHIEVING TIMELINE

August 1994

• David Hornbeck appointed Superintendent of Philadelphia schools. • Philadelphia Federation of Teachers contract settled.

October 1994

• Philadelphia Inquirer publishes “District in Distress,” its first report card on the state of Philadelphia public schools, including information on poverty rates, dropout rates, teachers’ salaries, and student performance on the SAT-9.

November 1994

• Tom Ridge (R) elected Governor of Pennsylvania. • Mayor Ed Rendell (D) re-elected. • As part of a desegregation case against the District, Judge Doris Smith orders the School District to submit a plan for reducing racial disparities in student achievement. This comes after an education panel’s findings paint a dismal portrait of the Philadelphia school system, citing “an overall attitude of helplessness and resignation” about several aspects of the District among school staff and from citizens.

February 1995

• Children Achieving Action Design published. • Philadelphia receives a $50 million Annenberg Challenge grant, which is matched by $100 million from Philadelphia corporations, foundations, and federal grants. Greater Philadelphia First (GPF) announced as administration site for grant, the Children Achieving Challenge, and Vicki Phillips is named Executive Director of the Challenge.

May 1995

• Five months after taking office, Governor Ridge proposes a statewide voucher plan, which would provide families throughout Pennsylvania with school vouchers that could be used at private, religious, or out-of-district public schools. This is the first of Ridge’s three pushes to establish a statewide voucher program, none of which were able to garner needed legislative support.

September 1995

• First six clusters formally established. • City Council President John Street criticizes the Children Achieving agenda for being too complicated.

December 1995

• Standards Writing Teams, composed of parents, teachers, and community members, are convened; writing of new academic standards begins.

6 Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia

SIDEBAR 1. CHILDREN ACHIEVING TIMELINE (CONTINUED)

February 1996

• Philadelphia Daily News publishes a series of opinion columns that criticize Superintendent Hornbeck and Children Achieving. They kick off a series of articles and opinion pieces called, “The Great School Debate.”

August 1996

• Standards distributed to teachers for review.

September 1996

• All 22 clusters established. • Family Resource Network established to provide support to families.

January 1997

• State Representative Dwight Evans announces legislative proposals to write certain aspects of Philadelphia’s education reforms into law.

February 1997

• Hornbeck announces plan to reconstitute Olney and Audenried High Schools, drawing harsh criticism from school staff. The plan is abandoned when an external mediator judges the process invalid. • Mayor Rendell, City Council President Street, Superintendent Hornbeck, School Board members, and community leaders issue, Realities Converge: This Year is Different. The report details the origins of the District’s fiscal crisis and its future plans for managing the deficit. The authors promised a zero-growth School District budget but “drew a line in the sand” and refused to cut any more school-based programs. • District, city, and community leaders file lawsuit against the state contending that Pennsylvania does not provide a “thorough and efficient” education. Case later dismissed by state Supreme Court, which ruled that school funding decisions must be made by the legislature, not the courts. • City Council President John Street, then a candidate for mayor, makes his first public foray into working with the public on the issue of education by convening the Philadelphia Education Summit. The Summit aimed to stimulate a broad discourse on public education issues through televised forums, focus groups, town meetings, and a major conference.

September 1997

• Professional Responsibility Index (PRI) scores made public for the first time. The PRI, which had been adopted the previous year by the Board of Education, is intended to provide each school with a sense of where it stands along several dimensions, including: standardized tests, student and teacher attendance, and promotion and dropout rates. This marks the first reporting period of the first two-year accountability cycle (measuring progress from 1996-1998). Much of the data released at this time are made public for the first time in the District’s history. A number of schools show low progress.

Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia 7

SIDEBAR 1. CHILDREN ACHIEVING TIMELINE (CONTINUED)

January 1998

• Graduation and promotion requirements identified. • Vicki Phillips resigns as Executive Director of the Children Achieving Challenge. Suzanne Becker replaces her.

February 1998

• Hornbeck threatens to adopt an unbalanced budget if the state does not provide needed funds, which could lead to the schools closing before the end of the school year.

March 1998

• The District, city, and other officials and interest groups file a federal civil-rights suit against the state, known as Powell v. Ridge. The plaintiffs contend that the state’s funding practices discriminate against school districts with large numbers of non-White students.

April 1998

• State legislature responds by passing Act 46, a draconian state takeover law aimed specifically at Philadelphia.

March 1999

• Members of GPF’s board stand behind Governor Ridge when he introduces his second statewide voucher proposal, designed to provide vouchers to students in the most academically troubled school districts throughout Pennsylvania. Again, he lacks the legislative support needed to pass the proposal.

November 1999

• Street is elected Mayor. His role in public education is expanded during this election when Philadelphians pass a referendum to change the City Charter to allow the Mayor to appoint all members of the School Board with terms concurrent to his own.

January 2000

• Street appoints new educational leadership in Philadelphia. He selects a new School Board, the first time this has happened in the history of Philadelphia. He retains several, but not all, members of the previous Board. Street also appoints the first Secretary of Education for the city, Debra Kahn, who is charged with leading the District’s team in negotiation of a new teachers’ contract.

March 2000

• Mayor Street holds community meetings about education issues in all 22 clusters. At meetings, he solicits input about the schools and warns community members of a looming fiscal crisis, asking that they demand an adequately funded school system from elected officials at the state level.

8 Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia

SIDEBAR 1. CHILDREN ACHIEVING TIMELINE (CONTINUED)

May 2000

• The Pennsylvania Legislature passes and Governor Ridge signs the Education Empowerment Act, a state reform and “takeover” bill targeted at 11 school districts (including Philadelphia) with high student failure rates.

June 2000

• Threat of state takeover crisis in the District during the Republican Convention in Philadelphia is averted by a financial settlement between the District and Governor Ridge. Still facing a deficit, the School Board cuts the budget and Hornbeck resigns in protest. • School District announces number of teaching vacancies. • School Board adopts a FY2001 budget with an amount deficit.

August 2000

• Teacher contract expires, beginning two months of tense negotiating between the union and the Board of Education. Teachers authorize a strike, but continue to work with the knowledge that the District could impose new terms of employment at any point. Shortly thereafter, the Board of Education does impose new terms and conditions of employment. The union strikes over a weekend. The contract is settled before school is disrupted with the intervention of Mayor Street and pressure from Governor Ridge, who threatens a state takeover. • Board of Education announces decision to adopt a corporate style of management. Deidre Farmbry, a veteran Philadelphia educator, appointed Chief Academic Officer.

October 2000

• Philip Goldsmith, a lawyer and journalist, appointed interim Chief Executive Officer of District.

January 2001

• Education Week gives Pennsylvania a grade of “D-“ on funding equity in comparison to other states. It is followed by only seven other states.

May 2001

• Governor Ridge succeeds in passing an education plan that exchanges an increase in teacher pensions for a package of education bills that many observers perceive as a backdoor to vouchers. The package includes bills that provide state tax credits of up to 90 percent to corporations for donations to groups that finance scholarships to private schools or public schools outside of students’ home districts. • As an economy measure, the District’s 22 clusters are replaced by eight academic offices, reducing administrative costs and reassigning some cluster staff to teaching positions. At month’s end, the School Board adopts a budget with a $216 million deficit, creating a new fiscal crisis with state takeover of the District possible.

Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia 9

SIDEBAR 1. CHILDREN ACHIEVING TIMELINE (CONTINUED)

July 2001

• Mayor Street and Governor Ridge sign a Memorandum of Understanding giving the Governor permission to commission an analysis of the financial and educational state of the District. Ridge hires Edison Schools to do the job.

October 2001

• In the aftermath of September’s terrorist attacks, President Bush appoints Governor Ridge to U.S. Office of Homeland Security. Lt. Governor Mark Schweiker replaces him. • Governor Schweiker passes stealth amendment to Act 46, the state takeover law. It gives the state increased power over the governance body outlined in the act. • Schweiker releases his proposal for the District, based heavily on Edison’s analysis of the District. It includes plans to have a private education management organization (presumably Edison Schools) run the central administration and to have Edison run at least 45 schools. The Mayor and Governor have a month to negotiate a deal or the state has authority to take over the District.

November 2001

• Governor Schweiker backs off of his proposal to have Edison run the District’s central administration, but keeps them in a consulting role to the central office and as a private manager of schools.

10 Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia

Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia 11

income of a business and its gross receipts. PHILADELPHIA AND ITS (This means that the city is taxing a SCHOOLS business whether it shows a profit or not.) In 1998, Philadelphia was judged as having the highest business tax burden in the THE CITY country.15 One reason for this devastating tax burden is that the city is co-terminus he 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s were with the county which means that residents disastrous years for Philadelphia. must bear the full weight of paying for When David Hornbeck began his county as well as city services. A second tenure as Superintendent, the city reason is that the Commonwealth of Twas recovering from a serious fiscal Pennsylvania is a “low tax state” and its aid crisis during which it was forced to borrow to cities is also low. The taxing dilemma has $150 million from its employee pension been termed the Gordian Knot, “not fund just to stay afloat. With its credit amenable to unraveling even with the best ruined, the city had to pay more than $5 of intentions and considerable resources.”16 million to obtain the loan, a fee equivalent 11 to a 24 percent interest rate. From a peak During his eight-year tenure, which began of 2.1 million in the 1950s, population had in 1992, Mayor Ed Rendell brought dropped precipitously to the current level 12 Philadelphia back from financial collapse, of 1.4 million. The city lost 80 percent of creating a small budget surplus before he its manufacturing jobs, and the total left office in 2000.17 His tough stance number of jobs dropped from a high of during a strike of city workers early in his 800,000 to 250,000 during the same administration won accolades from the period. These trends have slowed, but still 13 business community, as the city ultimately continue. And the economy of the greater negotiated more discretion for Philadelphia region, while not as bleak as management. Democrat Rendell worked the city’s, is certainly sluggish in with Republican state officials to bring jobs comparison to many other large to Philadelphia, and by 1997 the local metropolitan areas which experienced economy showed a mild upswing, with a strong growth during the 1990s.14

Philadelphia citizens and corporations bear one of the highest tax burdens in the 15 B.J. Whiting, Philadelphia: Prospects and country. City residents pay a wage tax just challenges at the end of the decade. (Report to the below five percent and most city leaders Pew Charitable Trusts, 1999.) attribute the city’s loss of jobs as well as 16 Ibid, p. 29. population largely to the wage tax. For their part, corporations pay a business 17 The Mayor even succeeded in making privilege tax that taxes both the net Philadelphians proud of their city again. (This was no easy feat, given the image Philadelphia conjured up for many Americans — an entire city block in flames 11 M. de Courcy Hinds, “A $150 million loan buys after Mayor Wilson Goode and his managing director Philadelphia some time,” The New York Times (1991, dropped a bomb on the headquarters of the radical January 6), p. 14. group MOVE.) Putting tourism at the center of Philadelphia’s economic renewal, Rendell 12 Metropolitan Philadelphia Policy Center, Flight (or) flamboyantly promoted “the city that loves you fight: Metropolitan Philadelphia and its future. back.” Perhaps the city and Rendell’s greatest Philadelphia: Author, 2001. accomplishment, at least symbolically, was attracting the Republican National Convention — an irony 13 Ibid. given that by the time of the convention, in August 2000, Rendell, no longer mayor, was the Democratic 14 Ibid. National Committee Chair.

12 Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia

net gain in jobs that reversed a trend of these circumstances, it’s not surprising that several decades.18 when Superintendent Hornbeck went to the Mayor and City Council for increased However, the financial picture of the funding for schools, they were resistant. Philadelphia School District worsened Neither was willing to risk the financial during this period because the state froze jeopardy or political heat that increased its formula for providing funds to local city taxes to fund the schools would districts in 1993. The formula takes into generate. Their response was that the city account the number of pupils, the special had “stretched its taxing ability to the needs of the District, its ability to raise local limit” and they refused to provide taxes, and other factors. After 1993, state significant additional resources for Children aid to the District no longer rose in Achieving.23 By 1997, the Superintendent, response to increases in enrollment. On a the Board of Education, the City Council, per-pupil basis adjusted for inflation, the and the Mayor were all looking to the state real value of state education funds coming to solve the District’s fiscal problems. They to Philadelphia actually decreased by 5.9 were in agreement that the state was percent between 1993 and 1998.19 failing to provide a fair share of the costs of educating Philadelphia’s students. During Children Achieving, the School District’s per-pupil spending was well THE SCHOOLS below what was being spent by districts in surrounding counties, by as much as $5,443 20 Superintendent Hornbeck inherited a per student. Teacher salaries were also stable, but poorly performing school higher in suburban schools. Average system. Unlike some other American cities starting salaries in the suburbs were over where graft and patronage have made $3,500 higher than starting salaries in public schooling a disreputable enterprise, Philadelphia and maximum salaries were 21 the District was seen as honest, but failing. over $9,000 higher. A special section of the Philadelphia Inquirer published in 1994 — the summer Philadelphia’s Board of Education had the of Hornbeck’s arrival — painted a dismal responsibility for setting policy and portrait of student achievement in the city’s spending priorities, but it had no taxing 22 schools. According to the Inquirer: power. City Council levies taxes. Under • Over half of the city’s public school 18 N. Lemann, “No man’s town: The good times are students were failing to master basic killing off America’s local elites.” The New Yorker skills. Fifty-one percent failed the state (2000, June 5), pp. 22-28. reading test as compared to 13 percent

19 J. Century, A citizen’s guide to the Philadelphia statewide, and 50 percent failed the school budget. Philadelphia: Greater Philadelphia state math test as compared to 14 First, 1998. percent statewide. Seventy percent of

20 African Americans and 75 percent of School District of Philadelphia, Realities converge, Latinos failed one or both parts of the revisited: School district sees gains on test scores and management efficiencies, but fiscal crisis is at state test. hand. Philadelphia: Author, 1998, p. 11. Philadelphia citizens voted to change the city charter 21 Ibid, p. 29. so that the Mayor would have the authority to appoint all Board members at one time and to 22 Until January 2001, the Mayor was not able to remove Board members at his/her discretion. appoint the entire Board when he assumed office, which diluted the accountability of the Board to the 23 School District of Philadelphia, Realities converge, Mayor. But in the November 2000 election, revisited, p. 11.

Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia 13

• Forty-nine percent of ninth-graders networks, including the Philadelphia failed to earn promotion to the tenth Writing Project, the Math Congress, and grade. the Teachers’ Learning Cooperative, that had been nurtured by PATHS/PRISM.25 • On any given day, one in four students was absent from class, and in the In 1986, the Pew Charitable Trusts made a average year, nearly one in four groundbreaking $13 million grant to students was suspended from school.24 establish the Philadelphia Schools Collaborative, which aimed to radically Corporate and civic leaders were restructure Philadelphia’s neighborhood disappointed in student performance and high schools. The Collaborative crafted a disillusioned with local District leadership. strategy that restructured large, alienating Constance Clayton had served as the first high schools into campuses of small African American and first female learning communities. It also pressed the superintendent from 1980 to 1992. When District to pursue new school governance Clayton assumed the District helm, she structures, including site-based councils faced a system deeply wounded by bitter and “experimental status” which allowed union strikes and in financial crisis. She exemptions from labor and state made labor peace and financial stability the regulations in schools in which 75 percent first order of business in her plan to of staff voted to adopt innovations. But improve public education, and to her both PATHS/PRISM and the Collaborative credit, was successful in these areas. brushed up against District bureaucracy and the Philadelphia Federation of Clayton’s education reforms included a Teachers in the bid to gain autonomy for Standardized Curriculum that offered an the new small learning communities. For academic scope and sequence for all civic leaders, particularly foundation staff, grades and subject areas. A citywide these contentious public encounters testing program aligned test items with highlighted the system’s resistance to discrete curriculum objectives and change and the barriers to reform posed provided schools with a tool to monitor by the teachers’ contract. student progress toward achievement goals specified in their School Civic elites believed that Clayton had Improvement Plan. Unfortunately, her sought their support, but not their input on strategy for improving the academic matters of substance. They were achievement of students produced disillusioned with a District administration disappointing results. that was not forthcoming with data on whether students were actually making Under Clayton, the private sector increased progress.26 City and civic leaders seized its investment in public education. Higher Clayton’s retirement as the moment to education, foundations, and private sector influence the direction of Philadelphia partners created PATHS/PRISM, the public education. They established the precursor to the Philadelphia Education Partnership for Public Education, which Fund, which aimed to professionalize worked with the Mayor and Board of teaching through professional Education to recruit a superintendent who development activities and mini-grants for classroom teachers. Philadelphia was 25 E. Useem, J. Culbertson, and J. Buchanan, The nationally known for its strong teacher contributions of teacher networks to Philadelphia’s school reform. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Education Fund, 1997. 24 “A district in distress,” Philadelphia Inquirer (1994, October 23). 26 Business leader, October 2000.

14 Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia

would put accountability for results at the focused on different consequences of the center of the District reform agenda. By school system’s inadequacies. this time, the Pew Charitable Trusts had assumed a prominent role in the national All of the people with whom we spoke standards movement and staff there hoped expressed grave concerns about the city’s to recruit a leader committed to that brand economic viability. Many implicated the of reform. schools in the city’s decline. Some blamed schools for the flight of the middle class CIVIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND and the ensuing erosion of the tax base: COMMUNITY GROUPS Public education is central to improving the

city. The issues that we hear about from A study of Philadelphia’s prospects and the neighborhoods are safety and schools. challenges commissioned by the Pew Schools are the biggest reason that people Charitable Trusts in the 1990s 28 leave the city. Myself included. characterized the city’s civic leadership as

“disengaged” and as having a “pervasive, The poor quality of education is certainly at defeatist mentality.”27 Despite Mayor Ed the top of my list. And then there are the Rendell’s cheerleading for city consequences from that — the loss of an improvements, civic institutions and leaders employment base, the high tax structure did not develop a “can do” spirit and compared to the suburbs, and the fact that efforts at rallying together to solve a 29 people don’t want to stay in the city. particular issue were limited. Community development corporations were weak Others criticized schools for churning out when Superintendent Hornbeck arrived students who were not prepared for and, while there were a few examples of employment. They saw the school system effective neighborhood and grassroots as responsible for a poorly educated organizing, they remained isolated and workforce that discouraged corporations were not directed at public education. from remaining in Philadelphia or choosing to locate here: PERCEPTIONS OF THE SCHOOLS I’ve been involved in trying to get big technology to the city. And it’s not The vulnerability of the city’s small happening. The wage tax is not the economic gains during the 1990s was deciding factor. Workforce preparedness is prominent in our interviews. In response to the biggest concern. And these folks are the question, “What do you view as the not looking for high-end employees. These three greatest challenges to are basic, entry-level jobs. They just want people who will be responsible, stick Philadelphia?”, informants almost 30 universally named economic decline and a around, and learn something. desperately inadequate public school Prospective employers are concerned with system. Our respondents saw the state of 31 the schools and the state of the city, the lack of talent in the city. especially the city’s economy, as tightly 28 linked, but they presented varying views on Media leader, April 2000. the lines of causality. Respondents also 29 Civic leader, March 2000.

30 Media leader, April 2000. 27 Whiting, Philadelphia: Prospects and challenges at the end of the decade, p. 22. 31 Civic leader, January 2001.

Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia 15

In summary, these interviewees stressed of the relationship between public schools the need to attract and hold businesses if and the city economy. They saw the two in the city was going to establish a viable tax a cruel and mutually reinforcing dynamic. base. From their viewpoint, Philadelphia’s Often they focused on the city’s existing economic recovery hinged on the schools’ residents and the lack of economic capacity to produce an adequate workforce opportunities for them: and attract middle- and working-class families. More and better jobs would We’re in a vicious cycle. We have a encourage middle- and working-class declining tax base, so the city is less able to families to live in and contribute to the provide the services people expect, so city’s prosperity through their taxes, people leave. And then you have the consumer spending, and housing neediest people remaining in the city. So investments. But the city could compete for the challenge is restoring opportunity for these new residents only if there were people to earn a living, raise a family with good public schools for their children. the expectation that the next generation will do better. We need a stronger It is only a small overstatement to say that economy and that is tied to the education these interviewees laid Philadelphia’s system.33 decline at the feet of its school system. Is this a fair analysis? We have already noted Some leaders were angry that schools bore the negative impact of high taxes on the blame for deep-seated social ills and working- and middle-class residents. In resented what they perceived as unrealistic addition, while it is true that many of the expectations for public education: middle-class Philadelphia residents recently relocated city cite poor public schools as a [Public education] has become the flash factor in their decision to leave, the trend point for societal concerns like race and of suburbanization began in the early class. We think we just need to come up twentieth century as result of federal with the right education plan and then we housing and highway policies, can make public education [and society] discriminatory bank lending for housing, work. This is simplistic.34 and flight from the influx of poor immigrants.32 Further, it is impossible to Clearly, Philadelphia’s leaders offered talk about suburbanization without contrasting ideas about what it would take situating it within a history of race relations to strengthen the city and what the public in the U.S. At times explicitly, and always could expect schools to do in that effort. implicitly, the suburbs have been identified Their varying analyses of urban problems as a place for White families. and the role of public education foreshadowed the different criteria by Grassroots civic leaders and School Board which they would judge any educational members painted a more complex picture reform. Some judged reform on its ability to hold middle-class families with school- 32 K. Jackson, Crabgrass frontier: The suburbanization age children in the city; others judged the of the United States. New York: Oxford University system’s ability to positively impact the life Press, 1985. In his analysis of federal housing policies over the past century, Jackson asserts that federal chances of those it has consistently failed housing policies, the development of the modern — poor children of color. transportation system, and the relocation of major corporate centers from urban to suburban areas have been the real culprits. He concludes that the basic direction of federal policies toward housing has been 33 School Board member, March 2000. concentration of the poor in the central city and the dispersal of the affluent to the suburbs. 34 Civic leader, May 2000.

16 Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia

Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia 17

began restructuring the system in line with POWERFUL MESSAGES the major ideas of the reform. Educators WITH MANY and parents, and community members developed content standards to guide INTERPRETATIONS curriculum and instruction by establishing what students should know and be able to uperintendent David Hornbeck’s do. Central administrators set targets for plan for improving Philadelphia’s schools and monitored their students’ schools, Children Achieving, was a progress on indicators such as standardized reform agenda with powerful ideas, test scores, attendance, and promotion Sambitious goals, and broad scope. and graduation rates which comprised the Hornbeck had strong beliefs about what District’s Performance Responsibility Index public schools could and should do. He was (PRI). The District offered rewards and passionate in his assertions that: “Results sanctions to school staffs based on their matter. It’s not enough to work hard,” “All schools’ progress toward meeting their children can achieve at high levels,” and targets. The District was divided into 22 “Adults’ expectations of students have neighborhood clusters, each serving a been too low and this has contributed to comprehensive high school and its feeder the consistently low achievement levels in elementary and middle schools. Cluster our schools.”35 Hornbeck pledged that offices were established to offer guidance every student would achieve proficiency in and support to their schools. In turn, three core subject areas (math, reading, schools were reorganized into small and science) by 2008. In laying out his plan, learning communities composed of 250- the new superintendent argued that 400 students and their teachers. Small previous attempts at reforms had failed learning communities were designed to because they were too incremental, too offer more personalized teaching and narrowly framed, and did not attempt to learning environments and to customize alter the “system” itself. He believed that a curriculum and instruction to meet the more comprehensive strategy was needs of their students. Schools were necessary — one that changed all parts of encouraged to create local school councils the system all at once. Superintendent of teachers, parents, and administrators to Hornbeck identified 10 reform components set school policies. which were necessary in order for Philadelphia schools to meet the new The District established a system of ambitious student performance goals (see supports to help schools meet their Sidebar 2 on page 18). Hornbeck’s performance targets. These included: message was powerful and resonated with clusters, as described above; the a community eager for change. Curriculum Frameworks, to give more guidance to teachers in how to implement The language describing the reform the new standards; the Teaching and components, however, was abstract and Learning Network, to provide direct laden with educational terms unfamiliar to support (i.e., professional development, most people and open to many advice on how to implement new District interpretations. The critical levers for policies) to schools and teachers; and the change in Children Achieving were Family Resource Network, to coordinate standards, accountability, and the many “safety net” human services decentralization. Based on the Children supports that so many poor children need. Achieving Action Design, District leaders

35 Excerpts from speeches by the Superintendent.

18 Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia

SIDEBAR 2. THE CHILDREN ACHIEVING 10-POINT ACTION DESIGN

In 1995, the District released the Children Achieving Action Design in which it articulated 10 reform components necessary to achieve its goals. The following are excerpts from District documents and the Superintendent’s speeches that enumerate these 10 components:

• We must behave as if we believe that all students will learn at high levels.

• Standards-based reform will drive the system…We must set standards, have new assessment strategies, and develop new incentive systems for both adults and students.

• Decisions will be made at the school level…Authority for decisions about personnel, budget, professional development, instructional strategies and curriculum, scheduling, student and teacher assignments inside of a school, and, perhaps, discipline, should be made at the school level…In addition to school employees, parents must also be partners in making those decisions.

• Staff development is critical to improved performance.

• Early childhood support is less expensive and more effective…There are at least three areas of focus important to school readiness: supports for families; health and social services; and full-day kindergarten, pre-kindergarten, and childcare.

• Community services and supports can make the difference between success and failure. Children who are unhealthy, hungry, abused, ill-housed, ill-clothed, or otherwise face the kinds of problems outside of the school borne of poverty cannot achieve at high levels.

• Adequate technology, instructional materials, and facilities are necessary to learning.

• Strong public engagement is required. Unless parents, civic leaders, elected officials, the business community, postsecondary educators, and the wider citizenry understand and support radical change, we cannot sustain it.

• We must have adequate resources and use them effectively.

• We must do all of these nine components. The agenda is not a pick-and-choose menu. We must approach the challenge of education reform in a comprehensive and integrated way. If one or more features of the whole agenda is not implemented, its power to yield high performance by all students will be significantly diminished.36

THE CHILDREN ACHIEVING initiatives or components such as clusters, PLAN: “COMPREHENSIVE” AND small learning communities, or the new standardized assessments, but in terms of “COMMON SENSE” its broad approach to educational improvement. Interviewees, whether from When our informants discussed Children business, government, civic institutions, Achieving, it was not in terms of specific grassroots groups, higher education, or the

36 School District of Philadelphia, Children Achieving strategic action design.

Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia 19 media, portrayed the plan as established the idea that children can “comprehensive” and “complex.” They achieve.41 often recited Hornbeck’s admonition that “it was not a pick-and-choose agenda” and When I look at other urban school districts, that changes must occur throughout the I see that in many ways we’re lucky. We system all at once. And perhaps most have a strong reform plan.42 tellingly, they explained that Children Achieving was “common sense.” We have something to build on, but we have to remember that it takes a long time. It’s a complex agenda built on simple ideas What’s positive is the amount of work about schools. The premise is that you being done, the focus on high expectations can’t do just one, two, three things — you and changing practice, professional need to do it all.37 development, and involving the community in schools.43 Children Achieving was a logical document.38 Civic leaders saw the plan as a foundation on which to build, the strongest legacy of Children Achieving is a lot of common the Children Achieving era. sense ideas — it’s not some new brilliant program.39 Accountability was the most frequently mentioned characteristic of the reform by Educators have been trying to do the participants across all sectors. For the things that Children Achieving talks about majority of our participants, the for years.40 accountability system was not only the clearest aspect of the reform, it was also Our participants lauded Children Achieving the most important — the driver of for its logic. And they noted that its ideas everything else. A few, such as the business were not new. However, as we will show, leader below, considered accountability this broad view of Children Achieving the reform itself and criticized Hornbeck for masked significant differences in complicating a straightforward message understanding of the reforms. and losing the focus necessary to achieve results. Of all the sectors included in our sample, leaders of civic institutions offered the Children Achieving was all about most praise for the Children Achieving accountability. He [Hornbeck] made it reform plan. They expressed pride and complicated with the 10 points. He could gratitude that Philadelphia had a plan — have made it much more simple by something they saw that other cities focusing on the accountability piece. The lacked. loss of that was the loss of the message.44

David did Philadelphia the favor of showing The second most often-mentioned up with a concerted agenda that characteristic of Children Achieving was its emphasis on the idea that all children can

37 Foundation leader, October 2000. 41 Government leader, March 2000.

38 Civic leader, August 2000. 42 Civic leader, February 2000.

39 Former School Board member, October 2000. 43 Civic leader, March 2000.

40 School District staff member, May 2000. 44 Business leader, November 2000.

20 Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia

achieve and participants linked this idea probed their views of Children Achieving closely to Hornbeck as an individual. more deeply, it became apparent that there were competing understandings of The best thing that David did was the major ideas underlying the reform — convincing people that every child can particularly standards, accountability, and actually learn.45 decentralization.

[Children Achieving’s goal] has been to MULTIPLE INTERPRETATIONS change the mindset about what we can do OF CHILDREN ACHIEVING to make sure kids learn. The basic tenet is that all children can learn and I think he’s 46 A theory of action is the set of assumptions [Hornbeck] so right about that. and beliefs that reform leaders hold about

how their efforts that will work together to Although the vast majority of the people cause desired improvements. We have we talked to commended the ideas of the described Children Achieving’s theory of reform plan, there were a few exceptions. action as follows: These participants argued that while the rhetoric of Children Achieving was If the central administration works with the seductive, the plan was unrealistic. A labor schools and the community to set high leader argued that it did not address the academic standards for student realities of schools, particularly schools’ achievement; aligns assessment with those lack of resources for meeting the many standards; establishes an accountability needs of poor urban students: system that offers strong incentives;

delegates more authority over school How can you argue against Children resources, organization, policies, and Achieving? You can’t. It’s like Bambi. But 47 programs to the schools; monitors equity you have to look at the reality. throughout the organization; and builds

public understanding and support for A government leader who supported reform; and if central administration and school choice as a solution to the problems cluster staff provide guidance and high- of the schools said: quality support to schools and small

learning communities, then the teachers Children Achieving does not have meaning and administrators of the Philadelphia to the customer. What is Children schools, in consultation with their Achieving? Is it reading, writing, and math? communities, will customize instructional Children Achieving is a phrase to use as an technologies and patterns of behavior that organizing tool for marketing. It’s a feel- 49 48 will help all children reach high standards. good-about-the-system ploy.

Did Philadelphia’s leaders subscribe to this On the surface, almost all of our theory of action? Did they understand it? interviewees accepted Children Achieving’s No matter how strong the educational major premises. However this apparent improvement plan or how visionary the unity of belief was deceptive. When we district leadership, there must be sustained

45 Civic leader, August 2000. 49 Consortium for Policy Research in Education, 46 Foundation leader, January 2000. Research for Action, and the OMG Center for Collaborative Learning, A first-year evaluation report 47 Labor leader, August 2000. of Children Achieving: Philadelphia’s education reform. Philadelphia: Greater Philadelphia First, 48 Government leader, October 2000. 1996.

Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia 21 support from civic elites and ordinary They argue that any single theory of citizens in order for reform strategies to improvement often contains competing take hold and spread in urban schools. In concepts that are lost in the often-abstract addition to educational bureaucracy and language of school reform.53 They show human resistance to change, contentious how particular reform ideas, in their case, politics and scarce resources have “school-based management,” far from consistently undermined full being a consistently understood and implementation of reform ideas and plans.50 unified theory of change, are often Coalitions of support and institutional politically contested and have competing alliances are necessary. What does it take meanings. Recent research on the to create such coalitions and partnerships? standards movement in the United States has supported this.54 It has pointed to the In their analysis of the Chicago reform, varying interpretations of “standards” and Shipps, Sconzert, and Swyers argue that the very different implications that each of reform leaders must understand the these interpretations carries for such perspectives of local constituencies so that educational practices as assessment of their reforms will gain legitimacy in the student learning (standardized tests versus community. Such understanding helps performance-based assessment) and reform leaders craft approaches to pedagogy (scripted lessons that develop improvement or theories of action that students’ basic skills versus constructivist make sense to local stakeholders.51 It also teaching and learning that values inquiry helps reform leaders anticipate when they and meaning making). will need to compromise in order to gain broader support and build ownership. Like In the following discussion, we show that Hill, Campbell, and Harvey,52 Shipps, there were competing interpretations of Sconzert, and Swyers also argue that the ideas underlying Children Achieving. reform approaches need to be flexible. In Our interviewees read the abstract ideas of their view, no one strategy is likely to standards, accountability, and transform schools and improve student decentralization through the lens of their learning by itself. “Hybrid” reforms are own theories of how to improve public more promising. They are also more likely education. In other words, they heard what to appeal to wide range of constituencies, they wanted and expected to hear from especially if they emerge from ongoing the perspective of their personal theories discussions of reform ideas and revisions to about what actions would improve public original plans when necessary. education.

Lingard and his colleagues offer another We asked leaders what they perceived to perspective on reform strategies. They be the successes and failures of the reform, point out that too often reforms are what they thought ought to be continued, discarded without an understanding of and what changes they believed were what ideas actually succeeded or failed.

53 B. Lingard, D. Hayes, and M. Mills, “Developments 50 K.A. McDermott, “Barriers to large-scale success of in school-based management: The specific case of models for urban school reform.” Educational Queensland, Australia.” Paper presented at the Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22 (2000), pp. 83-89. annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April 2000. 51 D. Shipps, K. Sconzert, and H. Swyers, The Chicago Annenberg Challenge: The first three years. Chicago: 54 S. Thompson, “The authentic standards movement Consortium on Chicago School Research, 1999. and its evil twin.” Phi Delta Kappan, 82(5), pp. 358- 362. 52 Hill, Campbell, and Harvey, It takes a city.

22 Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia

necessary to improve schools and student schools and the solutions it offered to achievement in the future. From their those problems. We also identify the responses, we discerned five theories of interpretations each theory offered for the action which we have named: managerial, important ideas of Children Achieving — redistribution of resources, democratic standards, accountability, and revitalization, teaching and learning, and decentralization. market.55 It should be noted that few participants spoke from only one theory of MANAGERIAL action. Most drew from multiple theories of action in their articulations of the problems Participants from the business and facing schools and what needed to be government sectors were most likely to done; sometimes there were contradictory view Children Achieving from a managerial theories operating at the same time in their perspective. From this perspective, low accounts. student achievement is seen as the result of weak efforts by adults and students. There were, however, some broad patterns Managerialists advocate for outcomes- of similarity among participants within based reforms and a system of incentives sectors. Business and political leaders and sanctions to encourage school staff focused on the need for a strong and students to ratchet up their managerial model. Some combined this performance. The role of central with a market approach, describing school administrators is to set clear performance choice as the most logical and powerful targets and then give school-level solution to a poorly performing school administrators the authority to decide how system. Grassroots leaders and civic to meet those targets. The purpose of leaders, Children Achieving Challenge staff, decentralization is to give discretion to and District employees saw economic school staff so that professional autonomy inequality and racial discrimination as the is commensurate with accountability. So, most significant issues confronting schools for example, the managerial approach (and the broader society). They called for a would not use decentralization as a means redistribution of resources that would to increase the role of parents in school provide students from groups who have decision-making, but as a means to traditionally performed poorly with the increase the responsibility of school staff to better-designed and more intensive solve students’ educational problems. supports needed to ensure their school What is important are clear accountability success. Grassroots, civic, and foundation targets, therefore standards need to be leaders were also likely to call for increased precise. In this theory of action, there is public engagement, thereby voicing the little concern that standardized tests will values of democratic revitalization. Higher narrow curriculum and instruction. education, civic, and foundation leaders focused on teaching and learning as the Those of our participants who spoke from pathway to improving student this theory of action often wanted District performance. leaders to be political pragmatists who “could get the job done;” they wanted Below we examine these five theories of principals to have authority to hire staff and action. We describe how each theory more discretion over teachers’ time; they framed the major problems of the city’s wanted the teachers’ union to make

55 Some of these theories are drawn from the work of Shipps, Sconzert, and Swyers (see footnote 51), and Lingard, Hayes, and Mills (see footnote 53).

Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia 23

TABLE 1. COMPETING THEORIES OF ACTION

Theory of Action Problem Definition Action Plan Purpose of Standards Lines of Accountability Roles in a Decentralized System Systemic Reform Lack of alignment of Establish standards, monitor Standards are Lines for accountability Central office sets (Hornbeck) policies has created progress, and offer important because they follow district organizational targets for schools, Guidance for fragmentation and incentives for performance. offer direction for chart. Public reporting of monitors students’ educational incoherence. Lack of Align policies and aligning curriculum, data on schools’ progress progress, and offers improvement from a accountability for resources. Build capacity assessment, allocation toward performance targets rewards or sanctions to distance through performance. through professional of resources, and also makes educators frontline educators alignment of policies, development. professional accountable to community based on performance. resources, and development. stakeholders. Authority for decisions incentives. about personnel, budget, instructional strategies, and curriculum belong to schools. Managerial Lack of accountability for Set clear targets for Standards are Lines for accountability Central administration (Business and results. Centralized performance and hold important because they follow the district sets clear targets for government leaders) bureaucracy and teacher everyone accountable for offer clear targets for organizational chart; performance. Frontline Frontline managers are contract are impediments to results. Give frontline performance and are employees are responsible managers have broad accountable for student frontline managers managers more discretion the basis for a system to their supervisor. discretion for hiring staff, performance with (principals). over work rules, resources, of rewards and allocating resources, and concomitant discretion etc. Build capacity of sanctions. With clear customizing the over decision-making. frontline managers. targets, educators and educational program to students will ratchet up fit local context. their performance. Redistribution of Economic and racial Generate public discussion Standards are Lines for accountability Central office sets Resources inequality. Insufficient about root causes of important because they follow the district standards and monitors (Grassroots leaders, resources devoted to inequality and build leverage socially organizational chart. When performance. Authority Children Achieving support all students in consensus about strategies equitable student combined with democratic for decisions about Challenge staff, and reaching rigorous for addressing them. outcomes. All students, revitalization, community educational program can District employees) standards. Mobilize resources from regardless of their race, stakeholders play an be made at any level, Reallocate resources so federal, state, and city class, and gender, will important role in but the central office that students who have governments, and private have access to a accountability. must play a vigilant role traditionally performed sources. rigorous curriculum and in monitoring the poorly receive the the supports necessary equitable distribution of supports they need to to meet new resources. When meet rigorous requirements. combined with standards. democratic revitalization, community stakeholders play an important role in monitoring equity.

24 Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia

TABLE 1. COMPETING THEORIES OF ACTION (CONTINUED)

Theory of Action Problem Definition Action Plan Purpose of Standards Lines of Accountability Roles in a Decentralized System Democratic Schools controlled by Promote public dialogue Standards are Educators are accountable Local community Revitalization educational bureaucracy about purposes of important because they to their community members play the key (Civic, foundation, and that is resistant to input of education. Make offer the opportunity stakeholders. role in hiring school grassroots leaders) parents and community information about schools for community management, setting Reform plan emerges members. Lack of a broad readily accessible to public stakeholders to local school policy and from a broad public public dialogue on the and create many avenues articulate what they monitoring outcomes. dialogue about purposes of schools. for civic engagement in want their students to purposes of education. schools. Make local school learn. councils authentic sites for community participation in decisions. Teaching and Learning Insufficient attention to Invest in professional Standards are Educators are accountable School staff who share a (Higher education, curriculum and instruction, development for principals, important because they to their colleagues for common mission and foundation, and civic the development of school teachers, and support offer a framework for continuing to grow pedagogical approach leaders) leaders, and the ongoing personnel. Seek out and/or curriculum develop- professionally, participating customize an Invigorate curriculum learning of teachers. develop high-quality, ment and imply an in school decision-making, educational program for and instruction to rigorous curriculum. Provide instructional approach. and for student learning. their students. emphasize critical many support services for thinking. Invest in students who need help professional reaching high standards. development for educators. Market System lacks choice, Create many educational Parents use their own Parents hold schools Educators (program (Business and competition, and options and give parents standards to select accountable through choice. developers, vendors) government leaders) entrepreneurship. the resources to choose schools for their select the educational Place schools under what is appropriate for their children. model for their schools. market conditions so children. The degree of parent that parents can choose involvement in this the best school for their process depends on the children. model.

Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia 25 concessions to management about the role critical to improving student performance. of seniority in job assignments and about If teachers believe that students can work conditions in exchange for increases achieve at high levels, then they will teach in compensation. One of our interviewees an enriched and rigorous curriculum to all crystallized the managerial theory of action. students, regardless of their race, class, Some of his comments included: and gender.

Children Achieving was all about Those advocating for a redistribution of accountability. resources call for a broad discussion about the reasons for inequities and the building He [the Superintendent] was a missionary in of an advocacy base to correct them. This the way he was so fervent in his approach. view overlaps with the Democratic You have to be practical to get things done Revitalization theory of action which also sometimes. calls for broad public discussion about public education. The [teachers’] contract is a big burden. It’s all the work rules, the crazy work rules.56 Disaggregated data that reports outcomes for students by race/ethnicity, economic REDISTRIBUTION OF RESOURCES status, etc. is key to this theory of action. Credible information about all students’ Grassroots civic leaders, Children learning is essential to decisions about how Achieving Challenge staff, and District to allocate and direct supports to students employees were advocates for who are not meeting standards. During redistributing resources. In this theory of Children Achieving, new ways of reporting action, the problem of low student student data brought attention to achievement in urban schools is the result educational inequities and the District of social injustice. Schools reflect the conducted a number of policy studies that inequities of the broader society and focused on questions of equity. Proponents reproduce them. Taken-for-granted of this theory of action argue that any practices, such as ability tracking, staff decentralization initiatives must be transfer, and seniority policies that assign accompanied by vigilant monitoring of the least-experienced and least-qualified equity. During Children Achieving, reform staff to schools with the highest leaders reflected that belief by pulling back concentrations of families in poverty, are from their initial decentralization of unfair. Increased resources distributed authority measures as they reviewed according to need are key to assuring evidence that reforms were not closing the 57 equitable outcomes. achievement gap between racial groups.

The redistributing resources discourse A civic leader articulated this theory of about standards emphasizes the action: development of high expectations as a necessary precursor to achieving equitable I really credit Children Achieving with student outcomes. The assumption is that putting the notion on the table that these differences in academic performance kids should have a really good school correlate with race and class because of system. I think being persistent about the adults’ beliefs that poor students and 57 students of color cannot achieve at high E. Foley, Contradictions and control in systemic reform: The ascendancy of the central office in levels. Changing adult expectations is Philadelphia schools. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of 56 Business leader, November 2000. Pennsylvania, 2001.

26 Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia

idea is good. We shouldn’t have a double They argue for a broad public dialogue on standard for suburban and urban kids. the purposes of education that would serve Hornbeck has mounted a serious as the foundation for a covenant between a meaningful effort to improve the schools community and its schools. The articulation here. Before it was always less than great. of standards for students’ learning is part The mentality was “we can’t do that here.” of the public discussion and lays the It’s been that way for as long as I’ve been groundwork for accountability of schools to around. Not building the support for the the community. The purpose of program is problematic. I think he has decentralization is to increase tried, but he could have done more. But parental/community authority in local then I don’t think the business community school councils. Participants speaking from or the PFT [Philadelphia Federation of this perspective critiqued Children Teachers] tried to help either. This has Achieving’s failure to “change power been a more serious attempt to get Philly relationships” and to “create a public schools to achieve at the same level as clamor for change.” suburban schools. The attitude isn’t “let’s do the best we can given the poor material The problem is that we made some we have to work with,” but let’s do it fairly structural changes but we did not change for everyone and gradually over the long the power or authority relationships in term.58 schools and between school people and the community.59 Those who advocated for a redistribution of resources were more concerned that My main criticism about Children Achieving Philadelphia’s public schools better serve is that you can’t do this kind of reform students of color and interrupt the cycle of without more widespread support. There poverty and disadvantage than that they needs to be a demand for it. There are strengthen the market economy, satisfy other parents and community leaders who corporate desires for an educated could support the agenda more strongly, workforce, or provide islands of but I don’t think the District tried to educational excellence for middle-class engage those people and it cost them in families. the end. You can’t have a large program like this without good salesmanship. I think Superintendent Hornbeck’s very public and that’s the crucial missing piece of this persistent fight for fair funding marked him, agenda. You can't just come up with some more than any other city figure, as a leader good ideas and then have quiet of the struggle for social justice in conversations with your 10 closest friends education. He remained a hero to many and expect things to change radically. It’s grassroots leaders and parents we not enough. You need to create a public interviewed, even as support for him clamor for change. That just hasn’t crumbled in other sectors. happened. I don’t think the public ever understood much about Children DEMOCRATIC REVITALIZATION Achieving. I think if they understood it, they would support it.60 Leaders from civic institutions, grassroots groups, and foundations were represented Public reporting of data redefines the in this category. Proponents of democratic relationship between the District and the revitalization view centralized bureaucracy as the obstacle to educational renewal. 59 Civic leader, March 2000.

58 Civic leader, April 2000. 60 Civic leader, April 2000.

Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia 27 community and encourages greater public interests, and abilities. This theory of action engagement in school reform. From this emphasizes non-hierarchical accountability. perspective, a major accomplishment of Strong collegial relationships among Children Achieving was making data teachers promote a culture of collective available for public scrutiny. The weak responsibility for student achievement. implementation of local school councils and lack of support for their authority was a Developing an infrastructure of expertise major disappointment. Often the civic and support outside the District (higher leaders calling for democratic revitalization education institutions, community and also viewed inequities in the educational cultural organizations) that can work with system as the root of many of its problems. school staff to improve teaching and learning is also an important component. TEACHING AND LEARNING From the vantage point of teaching and learning as a theory of action, full-day Higher education leaders, civic leaders, and kindergarten and Children Achieving’s foundation staff were proponents of the attention to increasing opportunities for teaching and learning theory of action. professional development were major Supporters of this theory of action focus on accomplishments. Some of the the ongoing learning of educational interviewees who supported this theory of practitioners, the professionalization of the action expressed disappointment that, teaching force, and the implementation of despite reform leaders’ intentions, it had educational innovations such as whole- proved extremely difficult for Children school reform models as the means of Achieving to reach classrooms. change. Fullan has been a strong advocate for this theory of action. He argues that We’re not talking about the classrooms. “changes at the bottom” are as necessary That is the hardest. The biggest for systemic change as policy alignment at disappointment is that we’re not paying the top. He suggests two bottom-up attention to teachers in the classroom. We strategies. One is the large-scale just do peripheral things. . .62 networking of schools with outside partners who can bring high-quality professional Others believed that the reform plan was development and other resources to bear weak in its mechanisms for developing on the challenges of schools. And the school leadership and bemoaned the second is a reculturing of schools so that District’s lack of investment in its frontline the ongoing learning of practitioners and educators. continuous improvement of practice are the underpinnings of school reform.61 David didn’t pay any attention to the leadership skills of principals. Imagine what Those working from this theory of action could have happened if we had focused on look to standards to offer teachers leadership development.63 guidance about what should be taught and how. At the same time, decentralization MARKET should offer school educators discretion over decisions about curriculum and The market-based theory of action asserts instruction because they are the that schools will improve only if they are professionals and they have the most placed under market conditions, in which knowledge about their students’ needs,

62 Civic leader, March 2000. 61 M. Fullan, “Turning systemic thinking on its head,” Phi Delta Kappan, 77(6), pp. 420-423. 63 Civic leader, October 2000.

28 Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia

SIDEBAR 3. SCHOOL CHOICE AS A THEORY OF CHANGE: GOVERNOR RIDGE’S EDUCATION REFORM PROPOSALS

Governor Tom Ridge’s education policy agenda differed radically from Children Achieving’s systemic reform approach. The theory of change underlying his reform proposals was that schools would only improve if they were placed under market conditions, in which parents were consumers and could choose what they considered to be the best school for their children. The exercise of choice would force ineffective schools out of business as parents moved their children to schools that were successful. Throughout his administration, Governor Ridge advocated the creation of charter schools, the institution of vouchers, and the privatization of school systems that were experiencing chronic and widespread failure as remedies to overcome entrenched bureaucracy and improve performances.

Five months after taking office, Ridge proposed a statewide voucher plan, called, “Keystone Initiative for a Difference in Our Schools,” designed to provide “educational opportunity grants” to families throughout Pennsylvania. The opportunity grants, or vouchers, could be used at private, religious, or out-of-district public schools. They would initially go to families making $15,000 or less a year and eventually to families making $70,000 or less. If the plan had been adopted, 52,000 students would have been eligible in the first year, more than half of them residing in Philadelphia. Shortly after its introduction, the bill was rejected in the House by seven votes.

Ridge’s second effort to promote vouchers was in spring of 1999. He introduced another statewide plan, called the Academic Recovery Act, designed to provide “super-vouchers” to students in the most academically troubled school districts. He wrote $63 million into the state budget to pay for a statewide pilot program, only to find that he again did not have the support needed from the legislature to start the program.

In spring 2001, Ridge finally succeeded in passing an education plan that included bills that many observers considered a backdoor to vouchers. The plan exchanged an increase in teacher pensions for a package of education bills that provided grants to parents for after-school tutoring if their children are failing state tests. And perhaps most controversially, the bill allows state tax credits of up to 90 percent to corporations for donations to groups financing scholarships to private schools or public schools outside of students’ home districts. These two provisions of the package were unique nationally. Another aspect of the package that supported privatization efforts was a bill that allowed school districts to create “independent schools” that were similar to charter schools, but did not have to start from scratch.

parents are consumers and can choose advocates of this theory of action. (See what they consider to be the best schools Sidebar 3 about Governor Ridge.) for their children. This theory assumes that In Philadelphia, the market theory of action if people have a choice, they will leave was discussed as a strategy for attracting schools that aren’t working and those and keeping middle- and working-class schools will have to improve or “go out of families in the city. business.” Vouchers, charter schools, privatization of schools, and outsourcing of The way I see it, it’s a way to keep the district services are among the most Catholic school system alive and well. If prominent mechanisms of reform for those schools crumble, then the city crumbles, and those schools deserve

Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia 29 support. Besides that, the poor single (AOP) focused on local school councils as mother should have the same rights as you sites for democratic decision-making that and I. She should have the same right to involved parents as substantive partners in choose.64 shaping school policy (democratic revitalization). The AOP was funded by the People aren’t using the schools. They’re Children Achieving Challenge to train going to charter schools or people are parents to be leaders in their schools, leaving the city. It’s all about market advocates for their children, and conditions. If people have a choice, they supporters for the overall reform effort. don’t choose the public schools.65 Often school staff, especially principals, were threatened by the new role for DISCUSSION parents and disgruntled by parents who were sometimes vocal in their critique of Children Achieving was an ambitious school practices. When school principals reform plan held together by a set of complained that the AOP’s work with powerful ideas about how to improve parents in their schools was undermining student performance. But as we have administrative authority, business leaders at demonstrated in this section, the abstract Greater Philadelphia First were inclined to and ambiguous rhetoric surrounding reduce AOP’s funding. While they systemic reform was open to many ultimately decided to continue to support interpretations. People understood AOP financially, the organizing group was standards, decentralization, and barred from working in any school where accountability from their own frame of the principal was not open to the idea. Our reference. These differences in research indicated that there were never interpretation were masked by the plan’s broad discussions of these competing appeal to logic and common sense, and its philosophies of decentralization. Instead, complexity and comprehensiveness. feelings of betrayal festered.

How did differences in interpretation play Likewise, although almost all of our out? When did they surface? One example interviewees lauded the Superintendent’s was around the District’s decentralization insistence that “all children can achieve,” plans. As originally articulated, Children this belief had different implications Achieving aimed to put decisions about depending on perspective. For curriculum and instruction in the hands of managerialists, particularly business frontline practitioners and, at the same leaders, it provided an ethical justification time, to engage parents in school policy for the accountability system: If we believe decisions through local school councils. that all children can achieve at high levels, Business leaders, the Commonwealth holding the adults who teach them Association of School Administrators (the responsible for their learning is the right school administrators’ bargaining unit), and thing to do. They were less likely to heed others working from a managerial the message of redistribution of resources perspective heard the emphasis on school- intended by the Superintendent. One level decision-making as a means of giving event put the difference in high relief. On greater control and autonomy to school the night Hornbeck proposed to the Board principals. But grassroots community of Education that it remove admissions groups like the Alliance Organizing Project criteria for special programs and schools so that they would be accessible to a wider

64 range of students, Mayor Rendell made a Business leader, November 2000. rare appearance at the Board’s meeting. 65 Government leader, October 2000. He successfully urged School Board

30 Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia

members to leave the criteria in place. He compelling logic of “We must change all argued that dismantling these programs levels of the system at once.” One civic would further increase the tide of middle- leader crystallized this problem: class parents leaving the city in search of strong academic programs. The Board The completeness of his [Hornbeck’s] vision voted to leave the criteria in place. wasn’t amenable to questioning. You couldn’t tamper with any part of it.66 Different perspectives on what it would take to improve public education remained The Superintendent’s posture of “You’re undiscussed for other reasons. One was the either for me or against me” compounded close association of the reform’s ideas with this dilemma, as did the increasing Hornbeck and people’s perception that he centralization of decision-making. As we would breach no disagreement. As we will will detail in the next section of this report, see in the next section of this report, the important decisions and the discussions larger political and economic context of and debates leading to them were located inadequate resources also played a in a handful of people and were therefore significant role in discouraging open invisible to frontline educators, parents, the dialogue about differences. As District general public, and central office leaders struggled to make the case for administrators not part of the inner circle. fairer funding, civic leaders, especially, were reluctant to voice dissent about the The moral dimensions of the reform’s plan. They feared giving ammunition to message and their close association with political leaders who wanted to discredit Hornbeck were barriers to principled the reform and the Superintendent. discussions of important values, beliefs, and ideas underlying the reform. Even remembering that our interviews Hornbeck’s ownership of the reform and occurred before the state took the last the reform’s dependence on him as its steps toward takeover, we were surprised leader and visionary permeated the by how little we heard about the market interviews. theory of action despite its prominence as a priority of then-Governor Ridge. Our Some participants saw this as problematic. participants framed the struggle between A business leader said that the state and city leaders as a debate about Superintendent’s centrality distracted the costs of adequately financing the city’s attention from the plan and its ideas. schools and the state’s responsibility in that funding. They focused on the state’s failure Anytime you find someone as messianic as to institute more equitable school funding David, it’s hard not to concentrate on him policies and Hornbeck’s confrontational instead of the agenda.67 style which they saw as an inappropriate strategy for securing public support and And a grassroots leader worried that state cooperation. Only rarely did an Hornbeck’s ideology might be a barrier to interviewee discuss the different coalition building. approaches to improving public education offered by the Superintendent and the Children Achieving is a package deal, and Governor. he’s a zealot, and he’s on a crusade. I knew

Several of our interviewees noted that it was very difficult to raise questions about 66 Civic leader, March 2000. the plan or mount an argument or offer another perspective in the face of the 67 Business leader, October 2000.

Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia 31 from the first meeting that it was going to thought people did not talk about the be a tense next few years.68 implications of “All students can achieve:”

These and other participants believed that David said it, but no one heard it. David the close association of the reform plan said that the issue of public education is with the Superintendent was in conflict with not about time, it’s about commitment. He building broad ownership of Children said that all children can achieve at high Achieving. The centrality of the levels if we really commit to them and Superintendent and his beliefs posed an don’t just give them a certain amount of obstacle to the difficult conversations time in the classroom. There was a necessary to building deep understanding philosophical question here: How high of a of, and investment in, the reform’s ideas. level does he mean? That confused a lot of people… Few interviewees delved beneath the rhetoric of “All students can achieve” to Historically, the only thing American public explore the meaning and implications for education has set out to do was to have curriculum and instruction, funding, and students spend a certain amount of time in public engagement that District leaders school. It has not been about commitment had intended. In her discussion of Children to their learning. David’s idea of Achieving’s legacy, one District leader commitment could have a powerful impact, identified two beliefs central to the reform but we haven’t decided to do it.70 commonly overlooked by civic leaders. In summary, what appeared to be Children Some of the important things that have Achieving’s greatest strengths — the been a part of Children Achieving are the power of its ideas, the coherence of its focus on rigorous standards, and rigorous plan, and the passion and commitment of standards for all children. It may take its leadership — also posed obstacles to differentiated instruction and different broad discussion of competing ideas and amounts of time for children to reach those strategies. It is through such discussions standards, but we can’t start with an that citizens are able to explore ideas, and assumption that there are different that leaders are able to hear concerns and standards for different children.69 either offer retorts or revise their plans. Such discussions help leaders put aside The first assumption contained in her their own private theories of action to build statement — that there should be high public consensus around a community standards for all — was familiar to and theory. Children Achieving never became a embraced by most of the people we shared community theory, but remained interviewed. The second assumption — the theory of a charismatic leader that was that there may need to be different perceived differently by different civic instructional approaches, different levels of leaders. Without broad public discussions resources, different amounts of time in and consensus on the strategy, there is order for all students to meet the standards scant likelihood for deep public investment — was rarely mentioned by interviewees. in a reform’s success. One business leader explained why he

68 Civic leader, April 2000.

69 Philadelphia Education Fund, Philadelphia public school notebook. Philadelphia: Author, 2001. 70 Business leader, October 2000.

32 Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia

Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia 33

— poor students of color and students with CHILDREN ACHIEVING: disabilities. A CALCULATED RISK But the various stakeholders — educators road-based involvement of a city’s and their unions, business elites, city and institutions and citizenry is state government officials (especially state necessary for sustainable legislators who control education budgets), improvement of urban civic education groups, grassroots- Bschools.71Clarence Stone analyzed organizing groups, parents and their school reform in several cities and organizations, and foundations — bring identified “civic capacity” as an important different and competing interests to their predictor of reform efficacy and staying involvement in urban public education. power. He defined the term: Gittell argues that:

Civic capacity concerns the extent to which The determination of any effort to achieve different sectors of the community — school reform is affected by which business, parents, educators, state and stakeholders become engaged, the local officeholders, non-profits, and others inclusiveness of their strategies, and the strength of their commitment and — act in concert around a matter of 74 community-wide import. It involves leadership. mobilization, that is bringing different sectors together, but also developing a David Hornbeck understood the shared plan of action…To be lasting, civic importance of the “public will” in capacity needs an institutional foundation improving schools. He made civic for interaction among elites and a engagement one of the 10 components of “grassroots” base through which ordinary the Children Achieving reform plan. citizens are engaged…72 (“Strong public engagement is required. Unless parents, civic leaders, elected Civic elites and ordinary citizens can press officials, the business community, for more radical improvement strategies postsecondary educators, and the wider than district insiders and special interest citizenry understand and support radical groups who are likely to cling to traditional change, we cannot sustain it.”) In this approaches to reform, organization, and section, we discuss the strategies used by labor practices.73 They can offer the District reform leaders to build civic institutional memory necessary for policy engagement in support of Children coherence as educational professionals Achieving. come and go. They can sustain improvement efforts by monitoring A CALCULATED RISK reform’s progress and holding political and education leaders accountable for Children Achieving can be viewed as a following through on their commitments. calculated risk. When David Hornbeck took They can serve as watchdogs and witnesses the job of Superintendent in August 1994, for those whose interests are often ignored he had reason to believe that he could muster the political support needed to win 71 Hill, Campbell, and Harvey, It takes a city. the additional funding needed to support his reform plan. The initial design of 72 C. Stone, Civic capacity and urban education, p. 2.

73 W.C. Rich, Black mayors and school politics: The 74 M. Gittel, “School reform in New York and failure of reform in Detroit, Gary, and Newark. New Chicago: Revisiting the ecology of local games,” York: Garland Publishing, 1996. Urban Affairs Quarterly, (30)1, p. 138.

34 Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia

Children Achieving was based on the the reform plan and the Superintendent. assumption that the state and the city Superintendent Hornbeck believed these would provide more dollars for the schools. obstacles could be overcome and District At the time of Hornbeck’s arrival, leaders pursued multiple strategies to Pennsylvania had a Democratic governor, press city and state political leaders to Democratic majorities in the state increase funding to Philadelphia schools. legislature, and Philadelphia had a They intended to align the resources from Democratic mayor. The Superintendent the Annenberg Challenge and various also had strong backing from business and other Philadelphia civic organizations with civic leaders in Philadelphia. the District’s priorities as articulated in the Children Achieving Action Design. They District leaders faced obstacles soon after would leverage all available funds to show Hornbeck’s arrival. The teachers’ union was sufficient early increases in student highly critical of the accountability system performance and prove that the reform and other reform proposals. One of the plan merited an increased investment of two daily local newspapers, The Daily local and state dollars. In the meantime, News, took a hard line against they also sought to recruit many others into Superintendent Hornbeck.75 It ran a series the fight for increased government called, “The Great School Debate,” which funding. District leaders launched a public criticized the District on many counts, relations campaign to build broad-based including the lack of textbooks in schools, support for the reform; they wooed issues of school safety, and the high cost of business and civic leaders by offering them implementing the new cluster system. A seats on various advisory groups and task member of the paper’s editorial board forces; they funded community organizing explained why the paper came out so to build grassroots support. At the same negatively, so early in the reform: time they built coalitions and alliances to lobby for increased dollars for public This paper has high expectations for any education, District leaders also sought city institution and we land hard where we changes in the state funding formula see poor performance. I’d say it was a through the courts. reflex not an overt decision. We value political skills and it was clear to us early in STRATEGY 1: ALIGN the game that he [Hornbeck] couldn’t get 76 RESOURCES things done in this city.

In February 1995, six months after David And City Council members, who were Hornbeck’s appointment as reluctant to raise taxes to support the Superintendent, the School District schools, fought back District leaders’ received a $50 million grant from the requests for more dollars with criticisms of Annenberg Challenge. Among the conditions for receiving the grant were the 75 In contrast, the Philadelphia Inquirer’s editorial staff urged Philadelphians to give Children Achieving a requirements to: (1) produce two matching chance. It played an important role in educating its dollars (i.e., $100 million over five years) for readership about the progress of the District through each one received from Annenberg, and (2) its annual “Report Card” on schools. The first report create an independent management card, published just two months after Hornbeck structure, preferably located in the city’s become superintendent, was the first public announcement ever of information about poverty corporate community, to provide program, rates, dropout rates, teachers’ salaries, and student fiscal, and evaluation oversight of the performance on the SAT-9. grant. The second requirement reflected the Annenberg Challenge’s misgivings 76 Media leader, April 2000.

Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia 35 about pouring money into large urban Trusts who had been instrumental in school bureaucracies and its conviction that recruiting Hornbeck were persuaded that radical change from inside districts was merging the two reform organizations was unlikely. District partnerships, they a way to streamline outside partner believed, with their larger communities organizations and ensure that their work would bring resources, advocates, reflected District priorities, thus avoiding expertise, and accountability — all of which the kinds of conflicts that had arisen in the were necessary to reforming schools. high school restructuring effort. Warren Simmons, who was prominent in the Superintendent Hornbeck turned to national standards movement, was Greater Philadelphia First (GPF), an recruited to head the newly created association of chief executives from the Philadelphia Education Fund (PEF). Like region’s largest companies, to house the Phillips, Simmons joined the Children Achieving Challenge. GPF leaders Superintendent’s Cabinet and Executive were, on the one hand, reluctant to Committee. PEF’s work became more become so closely involved in the workings focused on developing capacity inside of the District and to assume oversight of central administration to establish and the Annenberg Challenge funds, which implement policies congruent with dwarfed GPF’s own operating budget. On standards. It focused less on capacity the other hand, GPF was headed by building in schools (e.g., technical corporate leaders deeply involved in the assistance to high school small learning civic life of the city. They believed they communities, leadership development for could play an important role in supporting principals, etc.). the public schools and they were buoyed by Hornbeck’s accountability message, an A major principle of systemic reform is that ingredient they believed had been sorely a coherent policy environment is essential lacking in the prior management of the to widespread school improvement; District’s schools. They believed that the without such an environment, educational District’s contract with the Philadelphia excellence will be isolated to a few schools. Federation of Teachers was a barrier to Policy coherence is achieved instructionally improving public education. Locating the by setting standards for what students Challenge at GPF offered business leaders should know and be able to do and then ready access to the Superintendent and a aligning curriculum and assessment so that platform for pressing their views. Ultimately what is taught and what is measured flow they were persuaded to assume oversight from the standards. It is achieved of the Challenge. Furthermore, the operationally by directing district initiatives Challenge’s first Executive Director, Vicki and resources toward meeting the Phillips, had been a colleague of standards. Fullan described the role of Superintendent Hornbeck’s in the Kentucky alignment in systemic reform: reform effort. She was recruited by him to head the Challenge, became a member of Systemic reform…promises to align the the Superintendent’s Cabinet, and served different parts of the system, focus on the on his Executive Committee. right things, and marshal and coordinate resources in agreed-upon directions. The As we have seen, PATHS/PRISM and the idea of systemic reform is to define clear Philadelphia Schools Collaborative served and inspiring learning goals for all students, as important outside partners to the to gear instruction to focus on these District under Constance Clayton. Both directions, and to back up these changes organizations had pushed for changes in the District. Staff at the Pew Charitable

36 Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia

with appropriate governance and decisions were made by the accountability procedures.77 Superintendent and a handful of close advisors. This new plan resulted in a Congruent with that strategy, the Children diminished role for outside partners as well Achieving Challenge funds were used to as field-based educators like cluster create the District infrastructure necessary leaders, principals, and teachers in to enact the reform plan. A Challenge staff establishing the priorities, policies, and member explained the strategy and its plans of the District. Decision-making was rationale: increasingly isolated in a small group of people who shared the belief that We put our funding behind things that will coherent, aligned educational policy could help the whole District. That’s why we stay remedy the problems of poor student away from individual schools. So, for achievement. example, we put money behind standards and assessment and professional Raising matching funds to meet the development related to that. Here I’m requirements of the Annenberg grant talking about professional development in presented another opportunity for coalition large ways: getting the two networks [the building. To a large extent, this opportunity Teaching and Learning Network and the was lost in Philadelphia. The alignment Family Resource Network] up, leadership strategy made Annenberg dollars virtually development, good information systems in invisible as the Challenge’s monies blended place.78 with District funds to pay for District infrastructure. Elite support was at least The mechanism for aligning Challenge partly conditioned on their belief that the funding with District priorities were seven Annenberg and matching dollars were not Work Groups composed of staff from the merely supplanting state and local funds. central office, clusters, schools, the When GPF leaders could not point to Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, and, specific places grant funds made a in come cases, representatives from critical difference, they became uneasy and partners (e.g., universities, PEF). Each Work complained that they did not receive Group was charged with developing adequate or accurate reporting from the priorities, goals, and implementation plans District on how the funds were spent. for a particular area of the District’s work Other funders who contributed to the (School-to-Career, Standards and match became frustrated that their money Assessment, and Technology). Funds were entered the “black hole” of District then allocated from both the Children financial record keeping and they received Achieving Challenge budget and the little credit or acknowledgement for their District to cover the costs of the Work contributions. And people in schools were Group-approved plans. frequently unaware that the Annenberg money even existed and certainly did not But in 1998, the Work Groups were know what it paid for. abandoned with the intention that the Superintendent’s Cabinet and other In addition, because the Annenberg grant committees would replace their function. and the matching funds went to support But that never happened. Instead, new District infrastructures, there was little attention to building the capacity of

77 outside organizations to support the Fullan, “Turning systemic thinking on its head,” p. schools. (An exception was the creation of 420. the Alliance Organizing Project which will 78 Children Achieving Challenge Staff, October 2000. be discussed later in this section.) In fact,

Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia 37

some existing groups such as Citizens • Fourth-graders made educationally and Committee on Public Education in statistically significant gains. These Philadelphia withered and died during gains were likely the result of all-day Children Achieving. This absence of kindergarten and the implementation intermediary organizations presents a of a literacy program in the primary major problem to education reformers. A grades in which many schools used foundation staff member described the literacy interns to reduce the teacher- situation: student ratio.

Philadelphia doesn’t have the intermediary • In middle schools, eighth-graders made organizations that other cities do. We only steady, but considerably more modest, have PEF, and no other intermediary progress than fourth-grade students capacity. There’s potential capacity in the during the first four years of Children higher education community, but it’s Achieving. However, scores in math and applied sporadically. It’s very frustrating, science actually declined slightly in especially when contrasting it with Boston, spring 2000, despite a strong emphasis which has so much support in organizations on test preparation in classrooms. Our and people, and a much better economic qualitative research indicated that situation.79 changes in curriculum and instruction in middle schools were more superficial STRATEGY 2: IMPROVE than in elementary schools. STUDENT PERFORMANCE Furthermore, middle schools suffered from rampant teacher and principal

turnover that negatively affected their As mentioned earlier, reform leaders were learning environments. betting that the Annenberg Challenge grant and its match could be used to improve performance, and that improved • High school students, who performed performance would generate the political abysmally on the first administration of will to obtain increased state funding either the SAT-9, made little to no gains through the courts or the legislature, thus during the early years of the reform. allowing the reforms to be institutionalized Performance did improve in years 4 and and continued. 5. High school students’ attendance and persistence rates went up. Student test scores, student and staff attendance, and student persistence did Figures 1, 2, and 3 present the test results improve during Children Achieving. But by subject and grade level. student gains on the Districtwide test, the SAT-9, were uneven across the District. The improvements in test scores are Elementary students made greater gains noteworthy because Philadelphia had one than middle and high school students. of the most inclusive testing policies in the Schools with higher concentrations of low- country. The District promoted the testing performing students and students living in of all students. Each year the pool of poverty made greater gains than other schools. Our research80 indicated that:

79 Foundation leader, November 2000. improve the schools.” In M.D. Usdan and L. Cuban 80 W. Boyd and J. B. Christman, “A tall order for (Eds.), Powerful reforms with shallow roots: Philadelphia’s new approach to school governance: Educational change in six cities (New York: Teachers Heal the political rifts, close the budget gaps, AND College Press, in press).

38 Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia

FIGURE 1. PERCENT OF STUDENTS SCORING AT OR ABOVE BASIC IN MATH BY SCHOOL LEVEL, SAT-9, 1996-200081

100.0

90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0 ES 50.0 K-8 MS Percent 40.0 HS 30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0 1995-1996 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000

ES 32.2 41.9 45.3 47.8 49.1 K-8 40.4 48.5 53.7 54.5 MS 15.7 18.5 25.2 24.4 23.2 HS 11.6 13.8 15.9 15.2 16.4 Year

FIGURE 2. PERCENT OF STUDENTS SCORING AT OR ABOVE BASIC IN READING BY SCHOOL LEVEL, SAT-9, 1996-2000

100.0

90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0 ES K-8 50.0 MS

Percent 40.0 HS

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0 1995-1996 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000

ES 40.4 48.7 54.4 55.1 57.7 K-8 59.9 65.1 70.4 71.3 MS 43.3 50.5 55.0 58.5 55.8 HS 25.6 34.0 33.6 37.0 40.7 Year

81 For Figures 1, 2, and 3, percent of K-8 students scoring at above basic in math, reading, and science for 1999- 2000 was not available.

Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia 39

FIGURE 3. PERCENT OF STUDENTS SCORING AT OR ABOVE BASIC IN SCIENCE BY SCHOOL LEVEL, SAT-9, 1996-2000

100.0

90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0 ES K-8 50.0 MS

Percent 40.0 HS

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0 1995-1996 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000

ES 37.1 46.4 36.6 52.2 61.5 K-8 42.2 51.9 43.2 59.3 MS 18.1 23.7 18.8 30.2 27.4 HS 4.9 8.0 5.2 12.0 19.1 Year

tested students increased, and analyses There’s no denying there’s been show that the additional students were improvement. The test scores have gone generally lower performing. The fact that up. Not just the District’s tests. If you look scores rose significantly despite this was an at the Inquirer’s analysis of the state tests, encouraging achievement. Philadelphia made more progress than anyone.82 There was enormous celebration in the District about the gains and a huge I believe the numbers [the test scores]. investment in telling the “good news.” There was incremental improvement. Given What were our participants’ assessments of the handicaps that David had to work the reform’s success? How did they make under — some that he created for himself sense of the information on test score and some that were there already — my results and to what degree did the sense is that, however incremental, there District’s performance gains influence their was legitimate progress where it was most assessment of the reform’s progress? needed. And that’s among the poor, and Approximately 80 percent cited test scores among the people who don’t have a lot.83 as an indicator of some progress, but only about half of them saw the increases as meaningful. These respondents believed that gains were an indication that the reform plan was a good one and should be continued with some modifications. Some 82 commented: Foundation leader, January 2000.

83 Foundation leader, August 2000.

40 Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia

TEST SCORES WENT UP BUT… These participants were reluctant to put too much faith in test score gains. Some Half of the participants who cited the test believed that the pattern of early gains score gains as evidence of some progress, would not be sustained over the longer also expressed skepticism about the term; others that an over-emphasis on the meaningfulness of gains and questioned test in classroom instruction would the celebratory statements coming from ultimately result in students who were not reform leaders. “The test scores are up, prepared for postsecondary education or BUT…” was the view of this group. for employment in adulthood.

There’s been some improvement. Scores In the short run, if you implement a new are up, but not enough and not fast test and have short-term rewards with enough.84 accountability indexes and so on, you’ll see teachers teaching to the test. So short term The superintendent has been relentless in you see test scores going up, but you’ll see his focus on achievement. That’s the good later if it really helps kids, or better side. The bad side is that the schools are prepares them for societal roles. Just not improving enough — fast enough or because test scores are going up, I don’t across the board enough.85 know if kids are any better prepared.88

I think the progress, which I don’t want to The scores went up. The bottom line is minimize, is around the low-hanging fruit student performance. The reforms seem to on the tree.86 be making progress. But I worry about what children are learning. Maybe it is just They have improved incrementally, at least teaching to the test. I hope not. I want to the grade schools are doing better. The believe that there has been some real test scores seem to be better. But there progress.89 has not been much improvement in the high schools. We were told at the Even though there was improvement on beginning that there would not be much tests, people in the business community we could do for the students in the high don’t care about tests. They haven’t seen schools, that they were already so far results in the kids who are coming to them behind that we couldn’t expect them to looking for jobs out of high school, and meet high standards. I worry that the that’s what they’re really looking for.90 students from the grade schools who have made progress will go to these same old One higher education respondent raised high schools with the same old programs critical questions about what the test and that they will lose what they have measured and concluded that testing’s gained. They will drop out and we will be influence on curriculum and instruction no better off.87 inevitably narrowed the educational opportunities for poor students of color:

Testing is a real problem. It’s overly rigid. If

84 Civic leader, March 2000. you did that to our kids [White, middle- class students], we wouldn’t stand for it. 85 Media leader, January 2000. 88 Children Achieving Challenge staff, July 2000. 86 School Board member, April 2000. 89 Government leader, July 2000. 87 Business leader, August 2000. 90 Former School Board member, October 2000.

Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia 41

There’s not equity for poor children. It’s a Finally, in a highly contested policy cut-rate education for poor children. In environment, test gains — like any other order to engage poor children, we need to kind of data — are frequently used as engage their minds, and testing doesn’t do ammunition to defend or oppose a point of that.91 view.

In summary, while a significant majority of STRATEGY 3: SEEK INCREASES our participants identified test score gains IN CITY AND STATE FUNDING as an indicator of progress, they were evenly divided on whether the progress THROUGH THE POLITICAL was meaningful. These findings offer a PROCESS cautionary tale to policymakers and reform leaders about how they use test scores as Pennsylvania is a large and conservative evidence of progress. Citizens often do not state.94 In the state capitol, rural and know how to interpret test scores; they are suburban interests have often clashed with uncertain about appropriate expectations those of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. This for gains; they are skeptical about the was compounded for Philadelphia when means used to obtain gains and they are the legislature froze the state school distrustful of District claims. As one funding formula in 1993, resulting in a business leader said: steadily decreasing state contribution to local school districts.95 In January 2001, The Annenberg people tell me that Education Week gave Pennsylvania a grade Philadelphia is their best site so I guess we of “D-“ on funding equity in comparison to should be pleased with that. I don’t know other states.96 Only seven other states what kind of test score increases to expect. received a lower grade. I am not an expert so I have to rely on 92 others. A loyal supporter of Hornbeck’s and board member of Greater Philadelphia First at the In Philadelphia, as in other urban districts where student achievement has been 94 In his case study, “Philadelphia: Prospects and abysmal for many years, it was difficult for Challenges” (see footnote 15), Whiting relates that citizens to focus on performance gains James Carville, a political consultant to Bill Clinton when absolute performance was so low and other Democrats, portrayed Pennsylvania as a and when they saw and heard so much to state “with two great cities [Pittsburgh and Philadelphia] at either end and Alabama in indicate that schools were problem-ridden. between.” Philadelphians often quote Carville in their depiction of the political reality that pits It’s a struggling system. There are lots of Philadelphia against the state capitol and upstate good and committed people and lots of rural interests. uninspired and frustrated people in it. It’s 95 Actually both urban and rural districts have uneven school-to-school, class-to-class. My suffered under Pennsylvania education finance sense is that it’s improving, but it has a policy, but only recently have there been efforts to huge distance to go in terms of the quality build coalitions across the urban/rural divide in of instruction.93 support of finance reform. In fact, after resigning as Superintendent, David Hornbeck spearheaded an advocacy group, Good Schools Pennsylvania, which is organizing in support of new state policies.

91 Higher education leader, November 2000. 96 “Quality counts 2001: A better balance: Standards, tests, and the tools to succeed,” Education Week 92 Business leader, August 2000. (January 2001). States were graded according to their contribution to equalizing funding across all 93 Civic leader, April 2000. school districts in the state.

42 Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia

beginning of the reform described failed This paper set a new tone in the fight for attempts to build a bridge to Harrisburg: funding; it made school funding a moral matter and laid the blame for inadequate I went to Harrisburg to talk to Governor resources for Philadelphia’s children at the Ridge. The message that I was trying to get feet of the state. Later, speeches by the across to the state was, “We know that the Superintendent escalated an already District is not perfect. But we have a man charged environment with the accusation running it today who is most unusual that state funding policy was “racist.” The because he believes that he can fix it. This District’s white paper and subsequent is an incredible asset for you. What do we rhetoric by Hornbeck enraged the have to do to link arms with you?” Governor and other state leaders. Honestly, Ridge believes that you can’t fix the Philadelphia public school district. He’d David didn’t help himself with this process. rather skirt it by building an alternative I don’t know if he could have been system. In defense of Ridge, even if he had politically counseled successfully or not. He wanted to support Philadelphia schools, he got himself in the crosshairs as a big part of might not have been able to politically this issue, and no leader can afford that. because of opposition in the House of They absolutely hated him in Harrisburg. Representatives.97 And that’s not too strong a word. I heard people in Harrisburg say “so long as that A turning point in the relationship between guy’s there, you’ll never get a dime.” Any the District and the city occurred in 1997 contribution from the state would involve when District leaders, Mayor Rendell and his departure.99 City Council President Street, jointly distributed a white paper titled, “Realities As this participant suggests, the battle for Converge: This Year is Different.” The funding became an increasingly personal paper outlined a pending fiscal crisis. It one, fought between the Superintendent explained that the years of insufficient and state leaders. One result of this funding by the state and cost cutting by personalized struggle was that the reform the District had reached a point where effort became still further identified as the there were essentially no further ways to effort of an individual — David Hornbeck. cut corners without cutting deeply into The Superintendent repeatedly asserted important programs. The language in the that he had the full support of Mayor white paper was strong: Rendell and then-City Council President John Street in the fight for increased state The School District does not take these funding. They initially made a public show actions lightly. Yet, Philadelphia’s children of support, but in truth, Rendell was a deserve better treatment from the largely “silent partner” throughout his state…The state’s continued denial of its administration. One civic leader noted, basic constitutional responsibility simply “Frankly there were years when Ed Rendell leaves no alternative. The indisputable fact didn’t even mention schools in his State of is that the Commonwealth has denied its the City address.”100 moral and constitutional mandate to provide a thorough and efficient education The Governor and legislative leadership to the city’s school children…98 were adamant in their refusal to alter the school funding formula or provide the

97 Business leader, August 2000. 99 Business leader, August 2000. 98 School District of Philadelphia, Realities converge: This year is different. Philadelphia: Author, 1997. 100 Philadelphia Daily News (2000, August 24).

Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia 43 money requested. They believed that the school budget, Philadelphia leaders District used existing funding inefficiently, persuaded two local banks to issue the that the District’s teacher contract was a District letters of credit enabling it to major obstacle to improvement, and that borrow $250 million to keep operating the city needed to provide a larger share of through June 1999.103 Philadelphians had school costs. The District argued that taken notice of public education, and the Children Achieving had not been costly city’s schools were a key issue in the and that the District had in fact taken mayoral primaries and election, as noted in significant steps to cut administrative the Philadelphia Inquirer: spending. Overall costs had increased because student enrollment had grown, In a departure from past mayoral special education costs had gone up, and campaigns, when the schools barely rated a charter schools were a drain on District mention, this year’s crop of candidates is funds.101Although the state did provide talking often and avidly about public Philadelphia with some one-time grants, education. And in keeping with the these were small in comparison to what national trend, many of the prescriptions District leaders insisted was required to center on changing how the school system continue with the Children Achieving is run and financed.104 reform agenda. In November 1999, the citizens of Additionally, the Governor had quite Philadelphia elected a new mayor, different views on what it would take to Democrat John Street, who voiced support improve Philadelphia schools. He believed for Superintendent Hornbeck and his that vouchers and charter schools were the Children Achieving reforms. They also remedy. Repeatedly frustrated in his approved a change to the City Charter, attempts to get a school voucher bill which allowed the new Mayor to appoint all through the legislature, Governor Ridge of the Board of Education members looked for other ways to bring market concurrently with his term of office.105 In solutions to bear on the ills of public schooling. (See Sidebar 3 on page 28 for a converting public schools to charter schools without discussion of the Governor Ridge’s plan for approval by teachers and parents.” (As quoted in the school choice.) Wall Street Journal, 1998, May 15). The strong support for this bill reflected the legislature’s When Superintendent Hornbeck negative view of Philadelphia as an insatiable and “bottomless pit,” as well as their antipathy toward threatened to adopt an unbalanced budget the unions and Philadelphia's school superintendent. in the spring of 1999 and to close the schools early, the state responded with Act 103 K.A. White, “Philadelphia budget passes, easing 46, a draconian bill aimed directly at takeover threat,” Education Week (1998, June 10), p. Philadelphia. It allowed the state to take 6. over the District if Hornbeck pursued his 104 D. Mezzacappa and S. Snyder, “Candidates agree: 102 threat. Rather than cutting the proposed Mayor’s control of school board should increase,” Philadelphia Inquirer (1998, May 13).

101 School District of Philadelphia, Financial update. 105 The mayoral race was very close. Street’s main Philadelphia: Author, 2001. opposition was from Republican Sam Katz, a government finance consultant. Both candidates said 102 All the unions opposed this bill, but it passed that public education would be a top priority in their easily despite its numerous incendiary features, such administration, but they had very different visions for as provisions for replacing the School Board and how to improve the schools. Katz called for the superintendent, suspending the teachers’ contract, removal of Hornbeck and looked to school choice laying off teachers, and, in the words of the PaFT, reforms — vouchers and charter schools — as the “unilateral school closings and privatization by only solutions for the struggling school system. In an

44 Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia

addition, Mayor Street appointed Debra fully implement the Children Achieving Kahn as the city’s first Secretary of reform agenda. As a result, the Education to focus entirely on education implementation of new promotion and issues. graduation requirements was postponed and the number of days allocated for In his first year, Mayor Street made teacher professional development was education a top priority and took a reduced. Not willing to remain to oversee conciliatory stance toward state leaders. the piece-by-piece dismantling of his One new Board member hailed a new era reform agenda, Superintendent Hornbeck in the District-state relationship, “We must announced his resignation on June 5, 2000. go to the state as a united front and humbly.”106 While Street proclaimed that Ultimately, Mayor Street’s conciliatory David Hornbeck was his choice for approach, which included suspending a Superintendent and that Children federal lawsuit charging that the state’s Achieving was the right reform plan for funding formula was discriminatory, failed Philadelphia, the Mayor’s actions signaled to win increased state dollars. Governor to some that he was ready for a change. As Ridge and his successor, Governor Mark one union leader put it, “Street loved Schweiker,109 were steadfast in their Hornbeck to death.”107 And a District insistence that the state would not provide administrator said: more money without direct control over the schools. Mayor Street wanted a new strategy for handling the politics of public education. The struggle between state and city David Hornbeck was confrontational and leaders over financing the schools drained the Mayor wanted something different. He enormous time and energy from the hard and his Secretary of Education and the work of instructional improvement, as President of the Board decided to look for District staff calculated and re-calculated a CEO-type to deal with the political and what it would cost to fully fund the reform financial stuff.108 plan and provide Philadelphia students with sufficient opportunities to learn. The political impasse between the District Superintendent Hornbeck’s passionate and and the state came to a head again in the shrill rhetoric made him the lightning rod of spring of 2000 when the District faced a public debate. Other civic leaders were budget deficit of $205 million. Under divided over what strategy to pursue and pressure from the state takeover law to were reluctant to antagonize the Governor. balance the budget, the Philadelphia Board The community did not unite around a of Education made cuts and adopted a strategy to achieve fairer funding for the budget of nearly $1.6 billion which city’s schools. contained no new money for the programs the Superintendent felt were required to ironic twist, Katz was appointed Executive Director of Greater Philadelphia First soon after the mayoral election and has since pushed for school choice reforms coupled with increased state funding from his position there.

106 School Board member, January 2000. 109 Schweiker assumed office when Ridge was drafted 107 Labor leader, October 2000. by President Bush to become Director of Homeland Security after the September 11, 2001 terrorist 108 School District leader, February 2001. attacks.

Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia 45

STRATEGY 4: BUILD A But the District-PFT contract negotiations COALITION OF SUPPORT of 1996 marked a turning point in Superintendent Hornbeck’s relations with AMONG BUSINESS ELITES GPF leaders. GPF leaders were extremely disappointed that School District officials In the early years of the reform, GPF did not extract major concessions from the leaders championed Children Achieving teachers’ union. While they understood and its leadership. This help was crucial to that Mayor Rendell was as culpable as the the Superintendent at a time when the Superintendent for the contract, business Philadelphia Daily News, some of the city’s leaders directed their anger at the political leaders, and the teachers’ union Superintendent and began to withdraw were offering harsh criticism of the their support for the District’s reform Superintendent and his plan. By June 1996, agenda. A regional CEO and member of 18 months after receiving the Annenberg the Children Achieving Challenge grant, the Children Achieving Challenge Oversight Committee explained the had raised more than 90 percent of the perspective shared by numerous corporate required $100 million match — leaders: 110 outdistancing all other Annenberg sites. In the summer of 1996, business and civic Hornbeck and [David] Cohen [Chief-of-Staff leaders purchased space on the editorial during Rendell’s first term and a lead city page of the Philadelphia Inquirer to ask the negotiator in the PFT talks] promised us community to come together in support of they were going to negotiate some Hornbeck’s reform agenda and stay the changes. They made a commitment and on course with Children Achieving. The the strength of that promise, the business Children Achieving Challenge, in community raised the match for partnership with the Greater Philadelphia Annenberg. We kept our end of the Urban Affairs Coalition, also funded a bargain but they didn’t. We wanted the widespread public information campaign right to assign people to schools without called the Philadelphia Campaign for Public going by seniority, the right to make hiring 111 Education. decisions at the school level, some control over how prep time is used, and several 112 110 Consortium for Policy Research in Education, other changes but we got none of them. Research for Action, and the OMG Center for Collaborative Learning, A first-year evaluation report Corporate leaders’ disillusionment with of Children Achieving. Hornbeck also grew as they perceived that 111 Between 1995 and 1998, the Campaign, funded the District was not satisfying the priorities by the Pew Charitable Trusts, worked to “sell” the of the business community — efficient reform agenda. It published fliers and newsletters financial management and growth of that gave clear explanations of Children Achieving's business opportunities. Corporate leaders components. It led print, radio, and television advertising campaigns that initially gave information about SAT-9 testing, standards, full-day rallies in Harrisburg to advocate for equitable kindergarten, and school-to-career programs and funding; Kindergarten Read-in Days, in which later heralded the District’s success in improving test celebrities, elected officials, local business and scores, reducing bureaucracy, and setting tougher community leaders, and community members read standards, among other topics. The campaign also their favorite stories to kindergarteners around the worked to support the public engagement efforts of city; charter school forum, which was designed to other organizations by working with those explain what charter schools were to a lay audience. organizations on several events, including: Don’t These events contributed to giving Children Miss the Bus Tours, which brought hundreds of city Achieving a greater presence in the local media and and suburban elected officials, business leaders, also increased public awareness of the reform effort. community leaders, parents, and citizens into schools to see the impact of the reform on individual schools; 112 Business leader, August 2000.

46 Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia

were frustrated in their attempts to get community’s stance toward Children reform leaders to outsource a greater Achieving: number of the District’s service contracts to private companies. They believed that the The corporate community at the beginning, Superintendent was on board with this and along the way, had competing idea, but his inaction in this area fueled the interests. I think that there was a struggle more conservative GPF leaders’ perception between the educational issues they knew that the District was inefficient and not a to be critical to the city’s long-term health good steward of public funds. and their own economic health. On the one Business leaders were also furious with hand, they wanted to support an Hornbeck for his confrontational style, accountability, standards-driven agenda. which they saw as an inappropriate There was also support for the Governor — strategy for securing public support and his economic stance and his educational state cooperation. Two business leaders agenda. The Governor’s commitment to described their reactions to Superintendent economic development is pretty solid, from Hornbeck’s rhetoric about the state the business community’s perspective. It funding policies and state leaders: was a constant tug of war. Later, David’s personality made even more of a difference I was also upset about how David handled for them [corporate leaders]. I watched the the politics. The business community felt scale start to tip, and split the business that he was a good educator but a terrible community. Being inside, I saw where it politician. He offended people. He came from, even if I didn’t like it.115 intentionally irritated them. He was hired to be an educator, not a preacher. I know he Midway through Hornbeck’s tenure as has a doctorate in theology but his Superintendent, board leadership at GPF sermons were misplaced…So the state changed and took a more conservative wouldn’t talk to him at all and we couldn’t turn. Changes in the regional and national resolve the District’s problems without economic picture were transforming the their help.113 nature of business leadership in Philadelphia. Many local corporations (e.g., Yes, and he could have gotten it if he’d CoreStates Bank, Scott Paper, SmithKline, been a better politician or stayed out of and others) were taken over by companies politics. He could have gotten it if he’d based outside of Philadelphia, which given up more for vouchers. He alienated lessened the commitment of business the Catholic school system. I believe in leadership to the well-being of the city. In bringing everyone into the tent and not addition, city leaders were increasingly kicking anyone out, and David didn’t do interested in partnering with regional that…We depend on Harrisburg, and we leaders to address mutual areas of concern, won’t get anything if we tell them they’re and GPF had expanded its membership stupid, ugly, and wrong…David should base to include regional corporations. This have said, “Look, we both want meant that the organization now accountability” and worked from common represented suburban as well as urban ground.114 interests. By June 2000, when Superintendent Hornbeck resigned, only A Children Achieving Challenge staff four of Greater Philadelphia First’s member described the shift in the business founding 23 CEOs remained. These shifts in the city’s economic life served to isolate

113 Business leader, August 2000. 115 Children Achieving Challenge staff, October 2000. 114 Business leader, November 2000.

Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia 47 corporate leaders from other sectors of strengthening the quality of the workforce. Philadelphia’s civic community.116 They tried to persuade Superintendent A funder of reform described the shift: Hornbeck to work with the Governor on this issue. What happened was a rapid transformation from businesses led by Philly people to Early on, we tried to talk David into giving businesses without a vested interest in the Governor his voucher plan. He would Philadelphia, or an understanding of the have taken that card away and could have city.117 moved the discussion since we’d still have a tremendous number of kids to educate. Several participants contrasted the new The reality is that the voucher kids don’t corporate leadership to what had perform any better, but their parents feel previously existed. One explained: better about the school. It’s really a creaming process because the parents who David believed you could make a social take advantage of vouchers are probably contract with the business community, but already involved in their kid’s life. he looked up and they were gone. I don’t Personally, I’m for vouchers, but it’s hard think the corporate community is playing a when it’s a magic bullet by conservatives. I healthy, visible constructive role in public want to implement it but not as a magic education. But they carry tremendous bullet. As a magic bullet, I’m not certain weight. It’s a combination of factors. So that it really helps the 10,000 who get few businesses are local now. And there vouchers.119 are some leaders who came through the Archdiocese system. They want to keep Civic and community leaders that we taxes down and have vouchers.118 interviewed were disheartened by the behavior of the corporate community. One Business leaders insisted that it was the explained that business leaders’ orientation Superintendent’s inflammatory rhetoric made it difficult for them to be patient and about state leaders and their role in the persist in the face of serious social state’s sorry school funding policies that problems: pushed them out of the fold. Many were strong supporters of the Archdiocese The business community thinks short term. system and were attracted to Governor They think in terms of quarters — the Ridge’s proposal for vouchers which they furthest into the future they might look is believed would be good for business by two years. They pulled back because there stemming the flow of middle- and working- were not results soon enough.120 class families from the city, thereby buoying the local economy and Others were harsher in their assessment of the business community’s role. 116 The relative isolation of the business community from other civic leadership was confirmed by our Right now this corporate community gets network analysis of participants’ sources of off the hook. It skates. It’s having too good information about public education. This analysis a party right now. Maybe when Wall Street showed that business leaders received their information from the newspapers and the crashes, they’ll realize what’s going on. It Superintendent and were highly unlikely to interact stands to lose eventually. We’ve allowed with members of other stakeholder groups about the development of ways for the education public education issues.

117 Civic leader, October 2000. 119 Business leader, July 2000.

118 Civic leader, May 2000. 120 Former School Board member, October 2000.

48 Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia

FIGURE 4. SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Business

Media Government

School District of Civic Philadelphia Organizations

Labor

Strongest Foundations Higher Moderate Education Typical

Weak

of the labor force to come from elsewhere providing the interviewees with and government brokers for corporate information. There was moderate-strong interests.121 reciprocal communication among the District, foundations, community One of the questions that we asked organizations, and the media. Labor and interviewees was, “Where do you get your business were the most isolated sectors; most reliable source of information about the information they received was from a the School District of Philadelphia?” Figure very limited number of sectors, and 4 depicts the strength of the lines of likewise, they provided information to a communication among the sectors included limited number. in our research. The School District played the primary role in providing interviewees As this discussion has shown, business and with information about the District and its civic leaders were initially drawn to the schools. The media and community major ideas of the reform — particularly organizations also played important roles in accountability — and the charisma of the new Superintendent. Despite efforts to 121 Civic leader, May 2000. engage civic and business elites in the

Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia 49 reform, the business community’s support support for the reform agenda, which for District leadership and the reform plan would improve the chances of increased declined precipitously and business leaders city and state funding. became increasingly isolated from other civic leaders. But there are many barriers to involving parents in schools and our participants STRATEGY 5: BUILD A were well versed in the obstacles:

GRASSROOTS MOVEMENT OF We’ve also got to do more to mobilize PARENTS AND COMMUNITY parents. We need to help schools be more MEMBERS inclusive. You can do all the mobilizing in the world, but if they’re not inclusive, you The Children Achieving plan articulated a do more harm than good. There is a new vision for the role of parents in public struggle around the notion of community education. In another report in this series, involvement, what that means, how the on parents’ roles in Children Achieving, the district and schools can work with parents.123 authors explain that reform leaders saw

“parents as critical players in school 122 We have to get parents involved. This is reform.” They envisioned parents as hard. They are afraid to come to school. collaborators in reform and, in doing so, They have bad memories of school. Many moved away from other approaches to failed themselves. Some can’t read. They involving parents either as clients to be don’t know how to be advocates for their served by schools or as consumers who own children. But we have to get them ‘buy’ the best product (or school). This involved in their children’s education.124 vision of positioning parents as partners in reform fit with the reform’s emphasis on Many participants recognized that accountability. In addition to engaging parents in the process of improving educational improvement was unlikely schools, it emphasized parents’ roles in without a public clamor for change, and holding schools, and District, city, and state that parents were key to that outcry: officials accountable for the quality of public education. My main criticism about Children Achieving is that you can’t do this kind of reform Reform leaders also looked to parents’ new without more widespread support. There roles as a strategy for building support for needs to be a demand for it. There are Children Achieving and building a lobbying other parents and community leaders who campaign to press city and state could support the agenda more strongly, government leaders for increased funding but I don’t think the District tried to engage those people and it cost them in for Philadelphia’s schools. Developing a 125 strong base of parents and community the end. members who would participate in and advocate for Children Achieving was seen The reform’s design and implementation as an important strategy to create local included numerous components aimed at operationalizing the goal of parents as partners in reform. These included: the 122 E. Gold, A. Rhodes, S. Brown, S. Lytle, and D. Waff, Clients, consumers, or collaborators? Parents 123 School Board member, April 2000. and their roles in school reform during Children Achieving, 1995-2000. Philadelphia: Consortium for 124 Government leader, July 2000. Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania, 2001, p. 1. 125 Civic leader, April 2000.

50 Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia

inclusion of parents in activities and a brief opportunity to voice their opinions decision-making previously reserved for and have an important hand in shaping the education professionals, the establishment reform. It did not, however, result in a of local school councils, the creation of a lasting base of parent and community parent-organizing organization leadership. independent of the District, and a more open policy in the reporting of data about Another promising element of the reform student outcomes. was the establishment of local school councils (LSCs), composed of parents, Children Achieving began with a lot of teachers, and a school’s principal, which promise for including parents in new ways. would have broad authority at the school In 1995, parents and educators came level over policy matters, including budget together to develop the academic allocation, safety and security measures, standards for what students should know and facilities operation and management. and be able to do in different subjects and The councils, which were designed to have grade levels. Turning the development of an equal representation of parents and standards over to teachers, parents, and teachers, would give parents a new, community members was an important decision-making role in schools. While the decision early in the reform effort. It local school councils held potential for signaled that reform would be a public parents and community members, parents’ endeavor and that educators were not the roles on the councils were quickly limited only stakeholders who had important when the PFT pushed for, and won, a 51 knowledge about what students should percent majority of teachers on the know and be able to do. But in hindsight, councils. Further, schools had difficulties reform leaders believed that the effort did putting local school councils in place. In not result in the grassroots buy-in hoped order for a school council to be certified for: (and thus recognized by the District), one adult from at least 35 percent of student There was a lot of energy put into the households had to participate in the process. But at the time, we didn’t see that election of parent representatives. This the people who had developed the proved too difficult for most schools. standards could be advocates and Some of those schools created uncertified champions for them with other parents and school councils, but these lacked the teachers. That was a missed opportunity on authority and decision-making power our part. We thought we had done enough afforded to councils recognized by the just to have them locally developed.126 District. Several of our participants believed that District leaders did not go far We ended up allowing the public to shape enough in creating the conditions that the standards in an attempt to engage would bring authentic parent and them with the reform. But in the end, community involvement through local giving the community control of standards school councils: didn’t increase ownership.127 David [Hornbeck] wasn’t radical. He was As these participants describe, involving reformist. Part of his plan was to have a parents and community members in community impact in schools through developing academic standards gave them school councils but in all the time that he was in Philadelphia, he didn’t get LSCs in

126 even 50 percent of schools. If that had Civic leader, 1998. really happened, and parents had been 127 Children Achieving Challenge staff, October 2000.

Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia 51 given real authority, then that would have Superintendent Hornbeck’s vision of been radical.128 including community organizing as a component of Children Achieving. As a Local decision-making and LSCs never got result, the AOP was included in the off the ground. I’m not sure how many Children Achieving Action Design. Despite “real” school councils there are — that is, this connection to the reform effort, the how many are actually participatory bodies. AOP maintained an independence from the I would like to see more of that.129 Challenge as its mission and direction were set by an independent board of directors. Gold, Rhodes, Brown, Lytle, and Waff describe the challenges of forming The AOP’s organizing efforts were never as legitimate local school councils: far-reaching as intended. The organization planned to have organizers in all 22 The reform did not take account of how clusters, but in reality, only became deeply unsettling the shift of power among established in 12 clusters, with active schools, parents, and community would be parent teams in 30 schools. The new roles to many principals and teachers. Reform that AOP intended to create for parents planners underestimated what it would met significant resistance from principals take for schools, especially in low-income, and other advocacy organizations, which racially-isolated neighborhoods, to turn limited AOP’s outreach efforts and support themselves around and work with parents within the District. As Gold, Rhodes, as collaborators in school reform.130 Brown, Lytle, and Waff describe:

A third promising element for creating new Neither Hornbeck nor others in the central roles for parents in reform was the creation office anticipated the resistance from local of the Alliance Organizing Project (AOP), a schools, especially among principals, that new organization devoted to building AOP organizers would meet as they parent leadership. When the AOP was prepared parents and community members formed, Philadelphia was already home to to become co-leaders in education a number of community-based efforts to reform…A number of principals jumped to improve schools, both on a neighborhood the conclusion early in the effort that AOP level and citywide. was adversarial and would blame them for their children’s educational problems. Concerned about the lack of parent and These principals made it difficult and community involvement in previous sometimes impossible for an AOP education reform efforts, the leaders of organizer to work in their schools.132 several education advocacy organizations formed the AOP, with funding and support Principals’ resistance was made plain when from the Children Achieving Challenge. the Commonwealth Association of The AOP’s mission — supporting a cadre School Administrators, the principals’ of community organizers who would union, made the AOP an issue in contract develop parent leadership teams in schools across the District,131 matched 131 See Gold, Rhodes, Brown, Lytle, and Waff, Clients, consumers, or collaborators? for a complete 128 Former School Board member, October 2000. description of AOP and where it fit into Children Achieving’s efforts to involve parents in the reform 129 Civic leader, October 2000. effort, as well as a case study of AOP’s work in one school. 130 Gold, Rhodes, Brown, Lytle, and Waff, Clients, consumers, or collaborators?, p. 12. 132 Gold, Rhodes, Brown, Lytle, and Waff, Clients, consumers, or collaborators?, p. 19.

52 Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia

negotiations and Hornbeck agreed that open sharing of data and we can look at having the AOP at individual schools would where schools are working.135 be left up to principals’ discretion. It was not only school administrators, however, Participants also had reservations, however, who resisted the AOP’s presence in about the real meaning of the data that Philadelphia’s schools. Some advocacy was shared and how parents and organizations, too, feared that the AOP community members could use it, echoing would usurp their work with parents, and many of the concerns around test scores the fact that it was funded through the that civic leaders described earlier: Children Achieving Challenge encouraged these fears.133 It seems that scores may go up but the school is still in the toilet in terms of its This resistance to the AOP led reform climate, and the instruction, and what kids leaders at the Challenge to decrease their are really learning. My hope is that the commitment to it, in favor of encouraging progress on scores is not a technical point. all groups working with parents to work But change has not been dramatic enough together, regardless of their approach to for parents to have confidence in what’s involving parents.134 Thus, although the going on.136 AOP played a vital role in engaging parents in new ways in their schools, it did not Thus, while participants applauded the meet the reform leaders’ original vision for School District’s openness with information a Districtwide community-organizing effort. about student performance and many parents and community members did A fourth promising element for changing become more informed about their the relationships between parents and schools’ performance during Children schools was an increased sharing of Achieving, this information sharing did not information and data about student always translate to increased support for achievement and school performance. the reform effort. While reform leaders’ Reform leaders achieved this in part by efforts to share information about test publishing the test scores of all schools scores may not have significantly changed annually in the Philadelphia Inquirer and, in parents’ roles in schools, they did create a later years, posting them on the School system that was more open to critique and District’s web site. In the first three years of input from the community. the reform, attempts to increase information sharing were also Reform leaders’ strategies for building a complemented by the Philadelphia grassroots movement of parents and Campaign for Public Education’s community members who could advocate advertising campaigns. Civic leaders noted for the reform both locally and in the positive impact of these efforts: Harrisburg fell short of their expectations for many reasons including: skeptical Education is much more on people’s minds. school administrators, divisions within the There used to be despair and no attention. advocacy community, a lack of necessary It is now widely understood that problems supports to fully implement structures such need to be addressed. Also, there is more as local school councils or organizations such as the AOP, and, above all, a misjudging of the deep cultural changes

133 Ibid. 135 Media leader, April 2000.

134 Ibid, p. 20. 136 Media leader, April 2000.

Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia 53 that were needed to build a grassroots groups. The suit argues that the state’s movement and a misguided strategy for funding system violates Title VI of the Civil orchestrating it from above and inside the Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits racial or District. Reform leaders’ commitment to ethnic discrimination by entities receiving creating new roles for parents in schools federal funds. The plaintiffs contend that and school reform faded when the efforts the state’s funding practices discriminate did not result in large numbers of parents against school districts with large numbers who could go to Harrisburg to advocate for of non-White students; they cite spending increased funding.137 gaps between Philadelphia and suburban districts as well as between school districts STRATEGY 6: USE LEGAL with similar poverty levels but different ACTION TO PUSH FOR racial and ethnic compositions. This lawsuit is still active, although it has been EQUITABLE FUNDING suspended under agreements between Mayor Street and then-Governor Ridge A final strategy identified by reform leaders since summer 2000.The city and the state was to seek increased funding from the initially agreed to put the case on hold for state through legal means. Since 1997, the one year after the state agreed to District, in partnership with the city and additional funding for the District for the community groups, has pursued two legal 2000-2001 school year. The suspension actions against the state. The first was a date was extended for 90 days on July 30, lawsuit in the Pennsylvania Commonwealth 2001 in a Memorandum of Understanding Court that claimed the state had violated signed by the city, state, and District.138 its obligation under the state constitution to provide a “thorough and efficient” These lawsuits served to formalize the education for all children in Pennsylvania. District and city’s united front in the fight This case was similar to many school for equitable funding. However, they also finance lawsuits nationally. But in March caused deeper divides in the District’s 1998, a state court dismissed the case, relationship with state leaders and those arguing that it was lawmakers and not the divides, as we have described, led to court that must determine what constitutes decreased support from business leaders. an adequate education for students as well The state court’s rejection of the school as how much money is needed to provide finance lawsuit made visible the battle for it. And unlike courts in other states, the between state and city and marked a court did not order lawmakers to turning point for District-city relations. The determine a fiscal remedy to the state’s civil-rights lawsuit has been particularly funding system. Several of our informants offensive to leaders in Harrisburg because speculated that as long as state court of the race-related charges it makes and judges are elected, it is unlikely that the also because, as a federal suit, it poses a Pennsylvania legal system would render a more serious threat. decision that significantly altered how public schools are financed.

The second legal action was a lawsuit, Powell v. Ridge, filed in March 1998 in a U.S. District Court by the District, city, parents, students, and various advocacy 138 The deadlines originally set in the Memorandum of Understanding were extended until the end of 137 Gold, Rhodes, Brown, Lytle, and Waff, Clients, November 2001; it is unclear whether the lawsuit’s consumers, or collaborators?, p. 20. suspension was included in that postponement.

54 Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia

THE MISSING STRATEGY: bureaucracy, and argued that the money ENGAGE FRONTLINE would be better spent on early childhood education, smaller classes, and a District EDUCATORS curriculum that would provide more direction to teachers on what to teach. The School District’s relationships with its professional unions, the Philadelphia Unlike their union leadership, who did not Federation of Teachers and the utter a single positive comment about Commonwealth Association of School Children Achieving or District leaders in Administrators (CASA), were contentious five years of interviewing, rank-and-file over the course of Children Achieving. teachers saw parts of the reform agenda as very beneficial. More than 80 percent of It seems like from the beginning of David teachers believed that standards and small Hornbeck’s reform efforts, the teachers learning communities had the potential to haven’t been on board. I’m not sure why, have a positive impact on their students. but the teachers’ union is very powerful, But District leaders were not able to and more often an instrument against capitalize on this support. One reason was change rather than for it. The District has to that teachers felt that reform leaders were 139 overcome that in order to make progress. dismissive of their hard work. Their frustration began upon Superintendent Like the PFT — you want to get their Hornbeck’s arrival. support, get them to support something even if it’s not the whole agenda. I haven’t David helped to make education a hot met a teacher that has good things to say agenda, but he didn’t give credit for what about Hornbeck, which is a shame. These had been going on before. That wasn’t are relationships that could have been appropriate or humble.141 140 developed. Only four percent of teachers reported that Both the PFT and CASA offered strong they felt respected by the Superintendent. objections to key components of Children And this fact was not lost on many of our Achieving, particularly to its accountability interviewees who lamented the lack of provisions. Tensions were highest when the teacher engagement in the reform. District leaders attempted to reconstitute two high schools, plans which were Can you act on the belief that all children ultimately halted by an independent are capable of learning without a huge arbitrator who ruled that the District had team that is invested in the same way. It failed to engage in the necessary feels as though we’ve come a long way, consultation with the PFT. PFT leaders but I do think that the failure is that there repeatedly questioned the alignment of the are not enough professionals who think it’s SAT-9 assessment with the new District [Children Achieving] their plan. A high standards and were furious that the District school student intern was here last week never modified the formula for the who told us that her science teacher said accountability index despite their own she hates Superintendent Hornbeck. How protestations and the advice of an outside did we get to that?142 accountability panel. They also criticized the clusters as increased and unnecessary

139 Foundation leader, August 2000. 141 Higher education leader, November 2000.

140 Civic leader, June 2000. 142 Civic leader, April 2000.

Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia 55

They decried the stance of both District against the District. Mistrust of central and union leaders toward frontline administration was so great that CASA educators. leaders would not agree to support a survey of school principals as part of the The District needs to figure out how to Children Achieving evaluation for fear that engage the good teachers. The its members would be sanctioned for their Superintendent ignored them. And the responses. Foley summarized the situation: District needs to make more of an effort to get the PFT on board rather than write Philadelphia leadership consistently them off. We’re now in a situation where underestimated the importance of the PFT is disclaiming the progress on test developing and maintaining relationships scores. It’s disclaiming the improvement with these important stakeholders. They brought about by its own membership! discounted constituent perspectives, Hornbeck didn’t invent accountability or experiences, and ultimately, their power to reconstitution. When will the PFT realize hurt or help the School District. Other this is not going away? It’s a national districts considering systemic reform efforts trend.143 should work to collaborate with key stakeholders whenever possible and, at Not building the support for the program minimum, give respect to their was problematic. I think he tried, but he perspectives and experiences.146 could have done more. But then I don’t think the business community or the PFT 144 DISCUSSION tried to help either. Superintendent Hornbeck knew that strong Teachers were also demoralized by a public support was necessary to press for central administration that they perceived and sustain the ambitious improvements he as out of touch with the reality of schools. hoped to make. But grossly inadequate They were overwhelmed by demands of funding for public education in the reform and its mandate to do so many Pennsylvania and economic stagnation in things at once. the city created a harsh context for coalition building. It pressed reform leaders The communication piece of CA [Children to show swift, measurable results to gain Achieving] was always a source of public support and reinforced their frustration for me. I think they went forward defensiveness about their efforts. way too fast for the internal audience to Superintendent Hornbeck’s all-or-nothing buy in and support the reforms. As a result, approach, and the lack of broad public it took a lot longer for people to get it, and discussion about the varied interpretations there was a constant undertow of disregard 145 of the reform’s intentions, both contributed and disbelief. to the impermeable nature of the reform effort and left people feeling they did not Principals were even more alienated than have a role in developing or revising the teachers. Alleging that the pay-for- reform approach. performance system for school principals was not objective, CASA brought suit Strategies developed by city government and District leaders to build support for the 143 Media leader, January 2000. reform and secure more funding from the

144 Civic leader, September 2000. city and the state proved largely

145 Children Achieving Challenge staff member, 146 Foley, Contradictions and control in systemic August 2000. reform, p. 42.

56 Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia

unsuccessful. Failure to take into account court officials are elected, was unlikely to historical strengths of the District and its yield a favorable ruling. Because accomplishments alienated many teachers Philadelphia lacked strong and united and principals who might have, under community organizations to advocate for different circumstances, championed the more funding, it was hard to persuade ideas of Children Achieving and led efforts business leaders that a redistribution of at implementation. And leaders of the resources was necessary if Children professional unions adopted an Achieving was to reach its ambitious goal obstructionist stance toward the reform at of all students reaching high standards. its inception and became increasingly isolated over the course of the reform.

While most civic and foundation leaders continued to believe in the main principles of the reform plan, they were frustrated by Hornbeck’s alienation of frontline staff and state government leaders. For many of them, the man failed the ideas.

Urban regime theorists divide political power into two spheres: private sector economic elites and government officials. In a capitalist economy, government officials cannot generate public policy without the cooperation of those who control economic production. Partnerships between the private sector and government constitute governing “regimes.” The degree to which these regimes attend to social change and the redistribution of resources to alleviate poverty and its effects varies. It depends on the degree to which corporate and government leaders are engaged with community groups that promote a social justice agenda. Without interaction among these sectors, private sector interests are likely to dominate public policy. Increasingly, state leaders have become prominent in urban regimes, particularly around education as urban school districts are dependent on governors and state legislators for funding and are governed by state policies.

Over the course of the reform, the business community became increasingly isolated and alienated. Legal action against the state only served to further alienate state and business leaders and, given that state

Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia 57

alliances for reform. It discouraged critical LESSONS FOR THE questions, reflection, and revision — all FUTURE necessary for organizational learning.

think the ability to have a running From the time of his arrival, Superintendent conversation about achievement for all Hornbeck faced difficult odds. Inadequate kids for four years running is a huge school funding forced a leadership stance accomplishment. I think that people of, “We have the best possible reform plan. I We are making and will continue to make on the street have something to say about the education crisis we’re facing…It gives remarkable progress.” But selling systemic us something to build on, but we have to reform on a grand scale contributed to remember that it takes a long time.147 widespread disillusionment when common sense didn’t deliver the results anticipated. Our research shows how difficult it is to Many of the people we spoke with build the resilient civic coalitions necessary expressed the feeling, “We’ve done the for improving urban schools, especially in best and the most that can be done; let the the harsh circumstances of inadequate state take over.” funding. David Hornbeck was an attractive candidate for Philadelphia’s There were missteps by reform leaders on superintendency. He brought star power as many fronts — all stemming from the a national educational reform figure, and a mistaken beliefs that a reform coalition passionate commitment to improving both could be created around a fixed agenda urban schools and the life chances of poor and that those who built the agenda should students of color. He also had a strong make all the decisions from the center belief that his systemic approach to school about whether and how to change it. But reform could turn around a poorly other stakeholder sectors also missed performing urban school system. The opportunities to offer positive leadership. Children Achieving reform was adopted as For example, the business community was Hornbeck’s plan, but in its six years of ambivalent about its role in public implementation, it never became a civic education and failed to lead an advocacy undertaking; that is, an effort widely effort for revisions to the state’s school understood and championed by business, funding formula. Likewise, the Philadelphia civic, and government elites, and frontline Federation of Teachers was reactive around educators who would work tirelessly for its its self-interests and never engaged in a success. constructive way around accountability and changes in work rules — issues that had Although Hornbeck’s approach to systemic and continue to have broad public support. reform — the combination of standards, And the isolation of these two groups from accountability, and decentralization — was other sectors was an obstacle to coalition being widely discussed in national building. education policy circles for its potential, it was not yet a proven theory of change. In COMMON GROUND Philadelphia, the selling of systemic reform as comprehensive common sense and as a Certainly, the six years of Children package that “all had to be done at once,” Achieving were not for naught. undercut the possibility for the input and Philadelphians know more about what it accommodations necessary for building takes to improve schools than they did six years ago. There is a better understanding of the enormity of the problem and a 147 Civic leader, August 2000.

58 Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia

stronger consensus around key ideas which that there were unavoidable costs to together could form the cornerstones for ensuring that students had access to a future improvement strategies. Some of high-quality education. For example, these ideas are the direct legacy of increased compensation for teachers and Children Achieving — a recognition of its intensive attention to early childhood accomplishments. Others are the hard education were two budget items around lessons gleaned from the reform’s which there was wide agreement. disappointments. Current leaders need to recognize this knowledge and use it to Coalition building. Our informants were shape strategies that have a chance at adamant about the need for coalitions, not gaining legitimacy in the community. finger pointing. They recognized that public engagement in schools increased In order of frequency mentioned by our during Children Achieving: interviewees, ideas for improving schools included the following: (The number of Education is much more on people’s minds. times the idea was mentioned appears in There used to be despair and no attention. parenthesis.) It is now widely understood that problems need to be addressed.148 • Increase funding for the city’s schools (35) There has been progress in building some community support for education. People • Build coalitions of support for are getting involved, and that is healthy. improving public education (27) David did a good job initially in mobilizing the foundations and the business • Improve the quality of the teaching community. He got them behind his workforce (26) agenda. It was a big improvement over the previous administration when we had to • Provide access to data about how fight to get a hearing.149 schools are faring as the foundation for public accountability (24) However, they were weary of accusations and counter-accusations. Most looked to • Set high standards for all students’ leadership from the Mayor and the learning (24) Governor to heal the political rifts and move forward. • Continue full-day kindergarten and a research-based approach to literacy in The number one thing is the need for a the early grades (18) citywide, if not region-wide, groundswell of support that public education is important. • Seek changes in the teachers contract (18) Improve the quality of the teaching workforce. Teacher and principal quality We elaborate these ideas below. was very much on people’s minds and they knew that it would take multiple steps to Increase funding for the city’s schools. address these issues including: stronger Interviewees believed that increased recruitment strategies, increased funding was required to improve the schools and student achievement. While many acknowledged that there might be 148 Civic leader, April 2000. inefficiencies in the District, they believed 149 Business leader, August 2000.

Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia 59 compensation, and effective professional Set high standards for all students’ development. learning. Informants remained supportive of the idea of standards. The emphasis on teacher development and training has been really important. It’s so Certainly having the goal that you can critical to kids being able to do well. It’s the produce world-class education in a student teachers who are going to make a generation needs to be out there.152 difference at the individual level.150 However, our research points to the need Those who worked closest to the reform for discussions about what standards are also named ways to improve professional and how they are manifest in the reform’s development. They emphasized a focus on approach. content and sustained professional development that followed teachers into Continue full-day kindergarten and a their classrooms. But interviewees who research-based approach to literacy in were more distanced from schools had the early grades. A number of our little concept of the intensity of training respondents believed that Children necessary to strengthen classroom Achieving had brought important changes instruction. Reform leaders need to be in the educational experiences of aware of this and develop strategies that significant numbers of the system’s will encourage big investments in youngest students. They pointed to the professional learning and patience about establishment of full-day kindergarten and their effects. the attention to literacy in the early grades where there were also reductions in class Provide access to data about how schools size as offering a whole generation of are faring as the foundation for public youngsters a strong start in school. accountability. Informants applauded District leaders for being forthcoming with There are children whose lives have been data about schools’ performance. changed forever. If you were a child entering kindergarten five years ago, The emphasis on monitoring the chances are that you’re a better reader. achievement of kids, and being open about There were maybe 100,000 kids who were the information needs to be continued. positively impacted by full-day With Connie Clayton, they obscured it. kindergarten reduced class size. You can David’s actually holding himself up and really only judge the benefits and the holding the Philadelphia School District up progress by looking at those kids. The for review.151 reform was intended to take a full generation of children to really take root.153 The public will be watching to ascertain how open new leaders are to scrutiny. Will Seek changes in the teacher contract. data be readily available in ways that allow Informants believed that there needed to comparison across reform approaches? be significant changes to the teacher Will researchers, parents, and community contract. One government leader members have access to schools to summarized the opinions of most of our observe the quality of educational interviewees. programs?

150 Foundation leader, August 2000. 152 Business leader, August 2000.

151 Foundation leader, August 2000 153 Business leader, August 2000.

60 Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia

I think we have to make some radical public cynicism about educational reform changes to the teachers’ contract if we’re and its leaders. going to get any real changes. We need to change the contract provisions around Openly discuss competing reform ideas. hiring, transfer, and assignment so that our Public dialogue about proposals for schools with the highest poverty aren’t improving schools is central to building the penalized. Also, I believe principals when public will necessary for the long haul. they complain that they are held Educators need to adequately explain what accountable and can’t hire their own they’re doing and why. Leaders and staff.154 ordinary citizens need to understand and be able to talk about different reform LESSONS ABOUT COALITION strategies and theories of action. They BUILDING need to delve beneath education jargon to explore various interpretations of ideas.

Only then will the city be able to have a Educational reforms often falter in the productive dialogue about what will work absence of strong public engagement. in its schools. It is during such Understanding the reform strategy that conversations that various sectors of the preceded state takeover, how it contrasted community can understand one another’s with other approaches to improving public perspectives, find common ground, and education, how it was understood by move forward. community leaders, and how they assessed its accomplishments and failures offers Seek feedback about plans to improve important information to the School schools and listen to what others have to Reform Commission as it deliberates the say. As plans go forward, discuss their future of public education and seeks to progress, reflect openly on build public support for its plan. As they accomplishments and challenges, seek craft new plans for Philadelphia schools input, make mid-course corrections, and and seek support for the hard work of explain them. An informed public is more sustained educational improvement, it’s likely to be supportive and to sustain their imperative that they heed the past. In support over time. addition to the strategies identified above by our interviewees, we offer the following lessons gleaned from our research on the Children Achieving reform:

Capitalize on strengths and prior accomplishments. It’s tempting to condemn all that has gone before as a way to build support for change. This is why the baby is so often thrown out with the bath water in educational reform. But, starting from scratch wastes time and talent, ignores what has been shown to be effective, alienates the good educators who were responsible for prior accomplishments and could be leaders in the next phase of reform, and increases

154 Government leader, March 2000.

Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia 61

• Understanding of the Children APPENDIX A. RESEARCH Achieving reform plan; METHODS • Assessment of the District’s progress A research team conducted 42 interviews during the reform effort and what of civic elites between January 2000 and accounted for that progress or lack of January 2001.155 Interviewees were leaders progress; and from 10 sectors: civic institutions, current and former School Board members, • Prognosis for public schools. businesses, foundations, District leaders, Children Achieving Challenge staff, higher The majority of interviews occurred during education, media, government, and labor. two time periods, one between January (School Board members were also leaders and April 2000, and the other between in other sectors.) August and October 2000. Because the School District was at different moments of The research team chose interviewees transition and uncertainty during most of according to several criteria: the interviews, we also asked informants for their perspectives on the most recent • Leadership in an institution that was events affecting the schools. These events involved in Philadelphia public included: education and/or leadership in one of the 10 sectors identified as important • January 2000. John Street’s to represent; inauguration as Mayor and his appointment of a new School Board; • Knowledge of the Children Achieving reform; and • June 2000. Superintendent David Hornbeck’s resignation; • Identification by other interviewees as an important source of information to • August 2000. Threatened teachers’ them or as having an important/ strike; and interesting perspective on public education. • August-October 2000. New leadership structure for the central office, Interviews were semi-structured and including the appointment of a Chief generally took about one hour. The Education Officer and a Chief interview protocol was designed to elicit Academic Officer. perspectives of the interviewees on the following topics: Secondary data sources included literature reviews, documents from the Children • Public schools in the larger social, Achieving Challenge, and articles from economic, and political context of the local newspaper archives. Additionally, the city; research for this report occurred within the larger context of the five-year, multi- • Sources of information on how the method evaluation of the Children schools are doing; Achieving Challenge. We drew heavily from insights gained from hundreds of interviews and observations in central and

155 Our protocol was based on that used by Shipps, cluster offices and schools to make sense Sconzert, and Swyers in their evaluation of the of the data collected for this report. Chicago Annenberg Challenge (see footnote 51).

62 Civic Engagement and Urban School Improvement: Hard-to-Learn Lessons from Philadelphia

Number of African Sector Male Female White Latino Asian Interviews American Leaders of Civic 9 5 4 5 4 - - Institutions (20.0%)

Current/Former School 7 5 2 2 4 1 - Board Members (15.6%)

5 Business Leaders 5 - 5 - - - (11.1%)

School District 5 1 4 4 1 - - Employees/Leaders (11.1%)

4 Foundation Staff 2 2 3 1 - - (8.9%)

Children Achieving 4 1 3 3 - - 1 Challenge Staff (8.9%)

Higher Education Faculty 3 2 1 3 - - - and Administrators (6.7%)

3 Media 2 1 3 - - - (6.7%)

3 Government 1 2 1 2 - - (6.7%)

2 Labor 2 - 1 1 - - (4.4%)

45 26 19 30 13 1 1 Total (100%) (57.8%) 42.2%) (66.7%) 28.9%) (2.2%) (2.2%)