Professional Documents
Culture Documents
To
the
Members
of
the
School
Reform
Commission
My
name
is
Joe
Dworetzky.
I
served
as
a
member
of
the
SRC
during
the
period
from
2009
to
2014.
I
have
a
perspective
on
the
matters
before
you
and
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
share
my
observations.
My
comments
are
made
on
my
own
behalf
and
do
not
represent
the
views
of
Hangley
Aronchick
Segal
Pudlin
&
Schiller,
the
law
firm
where
I
am
a
shareholder,
or
of
any
other
person
or
enterprise,
including,
of
course,
the
School
District
of
Philadelphia
or
the
SRC
itself.
Before
beginning
let
me
extend
each
of
you
good
wishes.
You
are
in
a
hot
seat
on
this
decision
and
will
certainly
make
many
people
unhappy,
no
matter
how
you
decide.
As
you
consider
your
decision,
let
me
offer
five
observations:
First,
the
District
cannot
afford
new
charters.
The
numbers
are
compelling.
The
District
is
facing
an
$80
million
shortfall
next
year
to
simply
replicate
the
demonstrably
inadequate
status
quo.
Attempts
to
obtain
labor
savings
are
in
the
courts
and
accordingly
uncertain.
The
Districts
staffing
of
schools
is
sadly
inadequate.
Dr.
Hite
has
said
that
to
begin
a
true
transformation
of
the
educational
program,
the
District
would
need
not
$80
million
in
new
revenues,
but
more
than
$300
million.
Given
these
facts,
the
SRC
must
approach
new
spending
in
the
most
conservative
fashion.
New
charters
are
extraordinarily
expensive.
If
you
work
from
BCGs
analysis,
the
average
net
loss
to
the
District
when
a
new
charter
seat
is
filled
is
$7,0001
per
year.
1
http://www.williampennfoundation.org/ArticleFiles/327/BCG-Summary-
Findings-and-Recommendations_August_2012.pdf
(Page
34):
Each additional seat that is created in non-Renaissance charter schools increases the Districts
costs by an average of approximately $7,000 per year. This incremental cost is due to two factors:
Roughly one-third of all students attending charters came from outside the District
school system, meaning a private or parochial school. The roughly $10,400 average perpupil payment SDP must make to the charter represents an entirely new cost to the
District.
When students transfer from District to charter schools, the District is able to cut some
costs, such as instructional personnel. However, many fixed costs remain, such as school
administration, facilities costs, and central office services. These costs remain until the
District loses so many students that it is forced to consolidate schools. Furthermore, the
extent to which some costs can be eliminated depends upon (1) the concentration of
That
loss
continues
from
year
to
year
until
if
ever
the
District
can
recoup
that
much
from
building
closures
and
sale
of
facilities.
Given
the
time
it
takes
to
close
a
school
and
repurpose
a
building,
the
$7,000
loss
must
be
anticipated
to
continue
years
into
the
future.
Charter
commitments
are
long-term
commitments
because
in
most
cases
the
new
charter
lasts
5
years.
(Given
the
length
of
time
to
close
or
non-renew
a
charter,
one
could
argue
that
an
even
longer
period
is
appropriate
for
planning.)
The
District
is
no
condition
either
financially
or
operationally
to
bear
that
type
of
long-term
burden.
In
the
table
below
I
quickly
estimate
the
loss
the
District
would
expect
to
incur
over
a
5-year
period
if
it
were
to
authorize
say
15,000
seats
in
that
period,
as
some
have
advocated:
A
second
reason
why
the
SRC
should
not
authorize
any
new
charter
at
this
point
is
that
the
District
has
apparently
not
done
or
if
it
has
done,
it
has
not
released
to
the
public
-
the
financial
analysis
that
is
a
pre-condition
to
the
issuance
of
a
new
charter.
Under
the
SRCs
Authorizing
Quality
Initiative2
(memorialized
in
Section
402
of
the
SRCs
official
Board
Policies3),
the
District
must
conduct
a
full
5-year
financial
departed students from a particular school and/or grade level and (2) the Districts ability
to rationalize catchment areas in response to attrition. On average, the net cost to the
District of a student leaving for a charter is approximately $5,600.
The incremental cost of roughly $7,000 per student represents a weighted average of these two
factors.
2 http://webgui.phila.k12.pa.us/offices/c/charter_schools/authorizing-quality-
initiative
3 http://www.philasd.org/offices/administration/policies/
impact
analysis
and
share
the
results
with
the
public
before
the
SRC
authorizes
any
new
charter4:
Section
402.
New
Charter
School
Applications
7.
SRC
Decision
to
Grant
or
Deny
an
Application
Prior
to
the
public
hearing,
the
CSO,
with
input
from
the
Districts
CFO
or
his/her
designee,
shall
prepare
a
written
report
analyzing
the
financial
impact
of
each
application
to
the
SRC
in
each
of
the
next
five
years.
The
report
shall
include
a
determination
of
whether
the
goals
underlying
the
application
could
be
achieved
at
mitigated
cost
by
pursuing
an
alternative
approach
or
approaches.
The
CFO
report
shall
be
made
available
to
the
SRC
and
the
public
prior
to
the
public
hearing.
These
rules
were
adopted
in
April
of
2014
to
ensure
that
the
District
did
not
make
short-term
decisions
on
charters
without
fully
analyzing
the
long-term
costs.
Section
402
does
not
require
a
bare
financial
analysis;
it
requires
the
District
to
consider
whether
the
goals
of
the
charter
application
may
be
achieved
at
a
mitigated
cost
by
pursuing
an
alternative
approach.
This
analysis
of
alternatives
is
crucial.
We
know
from
experience
that
it
is
possible
to
open
a
new
charter
seat
at
a
fraction
of
the
financial
burden
on
the
district
that
would
result
from
this
process.
Experience
has
shown
that
the
District
through
the
Renaissance
Initiative
-
has
been
able
to
establish
seats
in
schools
operated
by
charter
schools
with
good
track
records
at
a
fraction
of
the
$7,000
per
seat
that
would
be
the
financial
impact
of
opening
new
seat
through
this
process.
In
fact,
many
of
the
operators
who
have
applied
for
new
charters
are
existing
participants
in
the
Renaissance
program.
Why
would
the
SRC
approve
a
new
charter
under
this
process
when
high
quality
operators
can
and
will
operate
Renaissance
schools
at
15
to
20%
of
the
burden
to
the
District?
(Not
to
mention
the
fact
that
Renaissance
charters
must
take
all
students
from
the
catchment
-
reducing
concerns
over
creaming).
But
as
the
District
considers
alternatives,
its
main
focus
should
not
be
on
charter-
operated
schools.
Rather
it
should
be
looking
closely
at
District-run
schools.
Before
the
District
commits
to
a
single
new
seat
with
a
price
tag
of
$7,000
(or
even
$3,500
or
$2,000)
per
student
per
year,
it
should
figure
out
what
a
District-run
school
could
achieve
with
that
type
of
money.
I
wont
repeat
here
the
sorry
history
of
the
Districts
failure
to
support
Promise
Academies,
but
District-run
schools
can
achieve
more
with
adequate
resources
and
sound
planning,
and
that
should
be
the
primary
goal.
Third,
when
the
District
performs
the
required
5-year
financial
and
alternatives
analysis,
it
should
consider
the
philanthropy
promised
by
Philadelphia
School
Partners.
Private
philanthropy
is
needed
and
welcome,
but
the
terms
must
be
carefully
evaluated
lest
a
gift
horse
prove
to
be
a
Trojan
horse.
From
what
I
can
tell
4
http://www.philasd.org/offices/administration/policies/402.pdf
from
public
reports,
the
PSP
proposal
will
only
cover
a
fraction
of
the
losses
that
would
be
caused
by
the
charters
it
assumes
will
be
granted.
The
SRC
should
do
its
best
to
convince
PSP
to
permit
those
funds
to
be
used
to
accomplish
the
best
alternatives
to
the
creation
of
new
charter
seats,
particularly
through
investment
in
District-run
schools.
Fourth,
the
SRC
should
use
this
occasion
to
correct
some
of
the
misinformation
in
the
media
that
creates
a
distorted
understanding
of
the
current
situation.
Yesterday
I
read
that
there
have
been
no
new
charter
schools
in
Philadelphia
in
7
years.
Of
course,
that
is
ridiculous.
Through
the
Renaissance
process,
more
than
20
new
charter
schools
have
been
established.
Moreover,
some
have
said
that
if
the
SRC
doesnt
grant
the
pending
charter
applications,
no
new
charter
seats
will
be
available
next
year.
I
am
not
certain,
but
I
dont
believe
this
to
be
true.
The
SRC,
despite
the
Districts
dire
financial
circumstances,
has
in
prior
years
allowed
many
charter
schools
to
grow
their
enrollment
within
negotiated
limits.
I
dont
have
the
exact
number,
but
pursuant
to
previous
authorizations,
my
recollection
is
that
there
are
new
seats
coming
online
this
year
and
next
as
charters
build
out
their
classes
pursuant
to
prior
authorizations.
If
my
recollection
is
correct,
SRC
should
insure
the
District
releases
the
numbers
to
the
public.
My
final
point
results
from
the
inescapable
fact
that
the
SRC
is
a
body
with
spending
power
but
no
control
over
revenue.
Given
that
fact
and
the
current
financial
situation,
the
SRC
must
consider
not
only
the
potential
benefit
of
new
seats
for
the
students
(currently
in
District,
parochial
and
independent
schools)
who
will
fill
those
seats,
but
the
impact
on
the
students
who
remain
in
District-run
schools.
That
$7,000
per
student
per
year
loss
is
not
a
paper
loss.
The
District
must
actually
fund
it
and
the
only
place
where
most
of
those
funds
can
come
from
is
by
way
of
further
reductions
to
the
instructional
services
that
benefit
the
remaining
students.
That
isnt
fair
and
it
isnt
equitable.
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
submit
these
observations.
Joseph
Dworetzky