As a former Philadelphia public school student, I can only imagine where education is heading when the only stories regarding students are told from the outside looking in. With adequate funding of our schools and a serious analysis of not only what students need in the classroom, but also what they’re dealing with outside their school doors, peer-to-peer violence would decline.

I can’t stress it enough that if there were more supports inside of schools that catered to the stark and frightening issues our young people face at home and in their communities the school environment would improve. Students are coming to school from broken homes, raising siblings, abuse, and a host of other constraints that often aren’t addressed inside of school. It’s very easy for publications and adults alike to just demonize students and sensationalize the violence in schools without ever talking about the root causes of that violence and the steps that could be taken to resolve them.

Young people didn’t create the larger societal issues, like poverty, that lead to violence inside schools. The reality is, that despite their hardships, students endure inside and outside of school, many manage to make the most out of the education they receive. Which is why I find it extremely disheartening that a news publication can win an award at the expense of students.

The Philadelphia Inquirer was recently honored in March with the Larry Weiss Award for Investigative Journalism which is open to journalism of any medium (print, broadcast or online) produced in the Philadelphia metropolitan area, South Jersey or Delaware. It includes one top prize of $10,000 and two special recognition prizes of $2,500. In addition to the Weiss Award on Monday April 16th The Philadelphia Inquirer also won the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service. The Philadelphia Inquirer received these awards for their Assault On Learning series that looked at the issues of school violence in Philadelphia.

The Inquirer’s series, however, only reflected student participation as victims or aggressors of school violence. There was no investigation into what students think could change the violence they see inside their schools.

The violence captured in the Inquirer’s Assault On Learning series seemed like an insurmountable task for  anyone to try and change. In fact the series left me, a graduate of the Philadelphia School District, frightened by the accounts of youth violence. 5 of the 7 pieces of the 7 part series presented such an overwhelming sense of despair that I found myself believing our students and our schools were hopeless.

Provocative portraits like the Assault On Learning series don’t help students, it only condemns them. Sensationalizing the interpersonal violence in schools is like waving the green flag to usher in more zero tolerance inside of schools and shaping the image of young people as dangerous.

Yes violence occurs in Philadelphia schools, I know this first hand, but it’s ludicrous to only cast the spotlight upon the acts of violence committed by students and not the underlying issues that lead to that behavior. Violence is a symptom of the greater injustices that our schools, communities, and students are suffering. Our schools don’t have money, our communities don’t have money, and our students don’t have money. This lack of money which provides the access to much needed resources is downright painful. It’s irresponsible to only look at school violence as students running wild and not as a reactionary response to the structural violence they face in under-resourced schools and communities.  

Philadelphia schools have the capacity to serve students better and The Campaign For Nonviolent Schools outlines how. According to its platform school violence will decrease if the discipline, student supports, student voice and classroom engagement are the main focus. “Climate improves when young people receive individualized attention and when they don’t fall through the cracks.” The CNS platform of restorative practices that include individualized attention for students is the solution to violence found in Philadelphia schools. Just this past Tuesday, young people from CNS groups attended a meeting of the School District’s School Safety Committee,to share their best practices for supportive school discipline. The members of the committee include school principals, district officials and representatives of the Mayor’s office and is chaired by School Reform Commissioner, Lorene Cary.

On Thursday February 16th The School Reform Commission of Philadelphia (SRC) voted to suspend a portion of the Pennsylvania Public School Code that requires a three-month window between an official public hearing on proposed public school closures and a vote to make them official.

According to legislative functions pdf available on the School District of Philadelphia website “The SRC may, upon a majority vote, cause to suspend at any time the operation of a SRC policy, provided the suspension does not conflict with legal requirements.” Thus granting them power to change the school code when they deem it necessary.

Regardless of why they have the authority to change the school code, the suspension of school code grants the SRC the power to close schools without any opposition from the public. We are looking at a major abuse of power and a complete disconnect from the SRC and the community. The SRC’s change in policy effectively shuts the door in our faces and is a blatant issue of accountability and transparency.

School reform cannot exist when the community is disenfranchised from the process. Who checks and balances the SRC’s power to silence us from school closings? We don’t appoint them. The governor chooses three members and the mayor chooses two. None of our parents or students sit on the commission so I don’t see how the SRC could go through with a major shift in policy like this without allowing our voices to be heard.

Community members were showing up in opposition to school closings, it wasn’t as if they weren’t showing interest. The community made it a point to be at the 21 community meetings around the issue of school closure.  As recently as March 4th, parents, students and other members of the Philadelphia community showed up on a Saturday to voice their opinions against school closings. The SRC’s abrupt change of school code hurts the community’s ability to be involved in the school reform process.

I know the SRC has a code of ethics which should have influenced its membership to make a more sound decision than to suspend such an important portion of school code. According to its code of ethics the SRC is supposed to include stakeholders in all communications, distribute relevant information about the district, as well as lead with respect and take full responsibility for SRC activity and behavior. However, actions speak louder than words and while members of the SRC may say it wasn’t a move to completely disregard the public’s persistence what else could it be viewed as?

In the meantime I hope for the well being of our students at the schools on the closing list. Where will they go? How will they feel when their schools are no longer available to them? Our students deserve better than this and our community needs to be central to the SRC’s decisions. The community can look back and say they did everything they could to keep the doors open but can the SRC?

Bucks County’s Pennsbury School District is allowing marketers to place advertisements inside their schools for profit. Subjecting students to advertising inside of schools in order to make money is ethically wrong.

Schools are supposed to act as the conduit between students and their success. However, in hopes to alleviate their budget crunch, the Pennsbury School District is allowing itself to act as the conduit between companies and students who could become customers of the companies behind the advertising.

Once again, major cuts to public education leave districts to fend for themselves and districts are now wading into the waters of business to stay afloat.

“It’s imperative we find alternate means to preserve our programs,” Assistant Superintendent W. David Bowman told the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Why is it that school districts are forced to make up for such deep budget cuts?  
On the surface it seems like an innocent trade-off. Schools give companies access to their students in exchange for much needed funding (a possible annual income of $425,000 according to a recent article from AllGov.com).  There are clearly outlined advertising guidelines: the advertisements must relate to health, education, nutrition, or school safety. Some would ask, where’s the harm?

But regardless of Pennsbury’s guidelines that prohibit direct product advertising, the presence of a brand name or it’s image is inappropriate inside of schools. Once you become associated to a brand or its name you are more likely to purchase their products. It’s bad enough students are subject to enough product bombardment in most facets of life, could we at least keep schools an ad free environment?

Another striking question is how far is $425,000 going to stretch when the budget keeps getting cut? If budget cuts become worse, districts will once again have to dig themselves out of the hole.

As districts get more desperate, will schools lift the advertisement firewall that mandates the ads must be related to health, education, nutrition, or school safety? That’s the million dollar question; would districts allow more direct product advertising in the event they needed more funding and could get it from marketers? Is this the beginning of a slippery slope towards treating students as consumers?

While I firmly don’t agree with allowing advertisers into schools, I can certainly understand why districts are making this choice. Districts like Bucks County’s Pennsbury School District are just trying to get what they need for students to achieve.

• Read More...