Planning Public Schools as Public Infrastructure
Jeff DelMonico, Danett Song, Khayla Trowell, and Winnie Cargill
Introduction
The City of Philadelphia's schools have struggled with asbestos, lead paint, mold, leaky roofs, and many more. Historical conditions of Philadelphia’s housing, land use, and general quality of life have combined with these deteriorating school conditions to create a toxic learning environment.
The purpose of this StoryMap is to provide contextual information, a framework, and tools/techniques to help supplement the work that is already being done. Its intended audience are all advocates in Philadelphia who hunger for change: teachers, parents, students, etc.
An important part of this presentation is the importance of data, which can illuminate problems and empower solutions. There is powerful data that exists in Philadelphia regarding school conditions, teacher satisfaction, etc., and we aim to show now only how to find, but also use this data.
We hope that this StoryMap can be used as a tool to strategize at both a city-wide and local level, and that advocates can use this as an operations plan.
How Did We Get Here?
Purpose: Provide background information and context for the city; tracing the symptoms of the school facilities problem through past policies and forced living conditions.
To set the scene for a reader, we frame this discussion from a community planning lens. We begin by showing examples of the conditions that many schools are in and provide some context for the reason why we are giving some background in the first place.
The StoryMap provides a more condensed and targeted analysis of Philadelphia’s school infrastructure troubles and provides a geographic context for what other challenges the schools might be facing that are not immediately obvious.
We use Furness High School and Hamilton Elementary as two case study examples to help explain why this information would be important for particular school districts.
At the same time, the FHA was subsidizing builders who were mass-producing entire subdivisions for whites — with the requirement that none of the homes be sold to African-Americans.
Philadelphia’s redlining can be seen here.
The Federal Housing Administration was established in 1934 and actively advanced segregation efforts by declining to insure mortgages in and near African-American neighborhoods. This practice became known as "redlining“ as the vast majority of African American communities were drawn in red and these areas were considered “hazardous” for investment.
Wealth Inequality
Today African-American incomes on average are about 60 percent of average white incomes. But African-American wealth is about 5 percent of white wealth.
This enormous difference between income and wealth ratio is almost entirely attributable to federal housing policy implemented through the 20th century and the dismantling of assistance to the poorest Americans.
African-American families that were prohibited from buying homes gained none of the equity appreciation that whites gained since the 1930’s.
Case Study: Both Hamilton and Furness are located in areas that serve families making less than $50,000 on average. The average median household income in 2019 was $45,927.
Economic Opportunity
Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a high correlation between the income of an area and employment rates.
Furness High School is located in a Zip Code where 19% to 22% of males were not employed in the past 12 months.
Hamilton is located in a Zip Code where 23% to 36% of males were not employed in the past 12 months.
For both schools, the student populations return home to families where there is a high percentage of unemployed males. Economic opportunity appears to be lower in these when compared to other areas of Philadelphia. The May 2021 unemployment rate for males in Philadelphia sits at 8.5%.
Crime and Race Linked
Violence and poverty have been widely recognized as being symptoms of one another. Philadelphia is no exception as the highest rates of gun violence occur in the same neighborhoods where there are predominantly African American or Hispanic/Latino residents.
As seen in the prior maps, these are the same zip codes where redlining has occurred, where low median incomes exist, and where high rates of male unemployment concentrate.
The government’s deliberate exclusion of these communities from accessing capital and limiting wealth building, has increased the economic stress an anxiety’s of these communities.
With a school system that provides the minimum amount of support, many young men are discouraged from believing in a future where they can be included in economic prosperity.
Poverty, and its negative impacts, are generationally cyclical. The children in these communities are faced with some of the most challenging circumstances in large part due to historical government disinvestment. Despite living in the wealthiest country in the world, these children walk to school in some of the most dangerous parts of the city.
Blood Lead Levels and Housing
Homes built before the 1978 ban on lead paint could create conditions where children are at a greater risk for lead poisoning. Families with less capital will likely not have the expendable income available to them to remediate the lead paint within their homes.
Case Study:
Both Furness and Hamilton are located in areas where over 56% of the housing stock was built before 1950. Lead pain remediation should be prioritized in these communities to limit the amount of exposure for children in these neighborhoods.
Lead Poisoning Risks
This map indicates that the areas where lead poisoning is most problematic are the same areas that were historically redlined.
Case Study:
Furness and especially Hamilton serve communities that are higher in risk for children to get lead poisoning.
Asthma Hospitalizations
There is also a high correlation between the redlined communities and asthma hospitalization among children.
Case Study:
Hamilton serves a community that has over 78 hospitalization per 10,000 children. This is the highest rate within the city.
Furness has a lower number of children being hospitalized for asthma with up to 48.6 children per 10,000 being hospitalized.
It should be reemphasized that historic redlining was present in just about every community which had a lack of economic mobility and consistent quality of life issues for children. This racialized housing policy has had reverberating impacts on communities of color for nearly a century and we are still seeing its unabating influence on children today.
- For those who are looking for a broader historical review of racial and socio-economic disparities, please click on this link to open a Google Slide deck.
Identifying Issues and Stakeholders Toolkit
Advocacy Planning is a term that was developed by Paul and Linda Stone Davidoff in the 1960’s to describe a more pluralistic and inclusive planning framework to ensure diverse interests are being considered at every phase of the planning process. Determining who should be at the table when decisions are being made and narrowing in on relevant issues are common challenges for planners. This document has been designed by Transparency International for advocates to assist in identifying:
What are the most important and achievable issues? Who are the stakeholders and have the most influence over the issue?
Transparency International is the global civil society organization leading the fight against corruption. Through more than 90 chapters worldwide and an international secretariat in Berlin, Transparency International raises awareness of the damaging effects of corruption and works with partners in government, business and civil society to develop and implement effective measures to tackle it.
To achieve these goals, the advocacy planner should follow this toolkit in order to develop a successful long-term vision that reflects the current reality of the issue and determine where to begin making strides. The planner will need to use their own assumptions and judgements to assess who the stakeholders are and characterize how much power they have over correcting the issue.
- The Problem Funnel is a visual representation of the variety of factors that affect school conditions. The four inputs at the top: lack of funding, rigidity of Philadelphia’s power structure, lack of transparency, and historical redlining, interplay with the school district, and trickle-down effects are seen in the district subdivisions and ultimately in the schools themselves, leading to the school conditions we see today.
Credit: Khayla Trowell
Where Do We Start?
Purpose: Identify problem areas from a city-wide vantage point; highlighting the schools and city sections with the largest quantity of reported facilities issues.
The PFT Healthy Schools Tracker Mobile App allows users to identify and report specific problems with building conditions in Philadelphia’s schools.
Conditions such as leaks and water damage, mold, peeling paint, compromised materials (like mold on chairs or wet books), and floor tile damage can all be reported.
Conditions such as leaks and water damage, mold, peeling paint, compromised materials (like mold on chairs or wet books), and floor tile damage can all be reported.
It helps act as an early warning system and can identify problems when they start and prevent more expensive or consequential problems.
The following table shows schools with ten or more unresolved PFT tracker app submissions, as of October 14, 2021.
Mold and Asbestos in the following schools: (Top Left) Frankford High School, (Top Right) Furness High School, (Bottom Left) Furness High School, and (Bottom Right) Farrell Area High School
In order to effectively strategize change in Philadelphia’s schools, we have drawn inspiration from similar strategies in other cities to create the following priority list.
The purpose of creating a priority list is so that each district subdivision can first rally around one school with the most need in their area to eliminate disinvestment and inequities throughout the city. Once that school sees improvement, the subdivision can turn their attention to the next school in the area that needs attention, systemically working their way through the subdivision.
Data from both the Facilities Condition Index (FCI) as well as the PFT Healthy Schools Tracker App were cross-referenced and tabulated to come up with these 6 schools in various zones.
- Frankford High School
- Lewis C. Cassidy Academics Plus School
- Ethan Allen School
- Furness High School
- Farrell Area High School
- Martha Washington School
For those who are looking for additional images of school conditions in Philadelphia’s schools, please click on this link to open a Google Slide deck.
School Climate Survey Data: A How-to
Purpose: This section will walk-through what data are available from the district’s annual school climate surveys, as well as where to find the variables of interest
SDP’s Office of Evaluation, Research, and Accountability administers a District-Wide Survey to students, teachers, families, and principals annually. The survey asks questions about five key topics: Climate, Instruction, Professional Capacity, Leadership, and Parent & Guardian Community Ties, and results are available in dashboard format as well as for download in raw data form .
Although student and parent response rates are historically low, in SY 2020-21, 67.5% of all Philadelphia’s teachers responded to the survey, which makes it a viable resource for gaining insight into school conditions, both from a facilities as well as a school climate perspective. The school climate survey can provide important information from a teacher perspective on the working conditions that they are experiencing on a day-to-day basis.
Navigating the School Climate Survey Tool
Along the top of the screen runs a menu of overarching categories from the survey
Select Topics to view data from each of the 5 key topics, and there are options to view sub-topics within each category in the left-side menu:
Advocacy Opportunity: There is actually a safety/building condition subtopic within school climate, and this could be the perfect opportunity for the district to ask more detailed questions about conditions settings in order to receive streamlined data.
On every screen in the dashboard, there is a filtering mechanism to select specific schools of interest.
In the main body of the page, users can view overarching scores by topic/sub-topic, broken down by respondent category as well as school year (for the past three years).
Each score can have a minimum possible value of 0 and a maximum possible value of 10, where 10 is the most positive possible response
This dashboard view can be incredibly beneficial in getting a quick look at particular strengths and possible problem areas within each school
“Make schools a place where people WANT to go. Where do you work? Is it somewhere bright, clean and cheerful? Why shouldn't schools be the same?” – Philadelphia Elementary School Teacher
Budgetary Background/Resources
Purpose: Provide an overview of the state of the school facilities budget in Philadelphia. Additionally, it will provide information regarding other organizations who are working on increasing the facilities budget for possible partnerships and collaborations.
The district revenue comes from two places: the city and from property taxes. The 50% of district revenue property taxes is automatic while the remaining 50% is supplemented by other raised taxes like a cigarette tax. Since the money is automatic, this creates the environment for less responsibility.
38% of the costs of public education is covered by the state. The rest of the money comes from the local school districts
In the Fiscal Year 2015-year budget, the district highlighted Capital Improvement Projects with repair costs. 2016 was the last year the district systematically reviewed school facilities. In that review, 13 schools needed major renovations and 16 schools needed major systems repairs.
In the 1990's the district spent an annual average of 40 million dollars on repair and reconstruction of school facilities for capital improvements, which started a maintenance backlog. From 1993 -2011, the annual average rose incrementally to 241. 3 million. However from 2012- 2016, the annual average dipped significantly to 60.9 million. In the FY21 budget, this average is expected to reach $159.1 million.
Questions that should be raised while advocating for capital improvements and facilities to be a higher priority:
Is this enough money for major renovations? How can we add new additions when the existing school buildings need repairs to reduce health risks? What conditions must exist for a building to be deemed uninhabitable? How will they determine if a school has deteriorated to the point where it must be replaced?
School facilities maintenance affects the physical, educational, and financial foundation of the school organization and should, therefore, be a focus of both its day-to-day operations and long-range management priorities. - Planning Guide for Maintaining School Facilities by NCES
How this affects community:
Toxic Schools Philadelphia Inquirer
In 2017, students from a City of Philadelphia school called Cassidy Elementary School wrote letters to their state senator Vincent Hughes. One letter highlighted in the news article highlighted the lack of funding to address these needed repairs.
Philadelphia students read their letters that they had written to their city and state officials in hopes of increasing publicity about their school conditions.
Over the years, the budget documents talk about the need for good building environment in Philadelphia schools. Even though it is written as a priority in the budget does not mean that it is reflected in the schools. Unfortunately, students suffer from unstable temperatures in classrooms and other issues during the school year.
Excerpt from FY 2015 Budget: “Provide a clean and comfortable building environment in all schools. We will improve the physical and environmental condition of buildings and transform buildings into welcoming and inviting spaces. Specific work will include executing our collaborative labor plan with 32BJ / SEIU 1201, implementing a work order management system, executing a facility condition assessment study, undertaking customer surveys and executing a more aggressive preventative maintenance plan. School building design and building conditions have a measurable impact on student achievement. Researchers have found a “5-17 percentile point difference between students in poor buildings and those in standard buildings.” 44 M. Continuously update and refine the system-of-schools plan, including expansions and replications of good schools, and transformation or closure of chronically under-enrolled and under-performing schools."
Resources
This budgeting guide was created by Massachusetts's Rennie Center on Education Research and Policy . This guide addresses the issue of school facility budgets being subject to the increasing demands and conflicting priorities of the modern school system. The goal of the guide is to help districts make more efficient and effective spending decisions.
One toolkit that was mentioned that might be helpful is the Cost Effective Financing for School Contruction and Rennovation Toolkit
This resource is a guide that is meant to explain how clean, safe, and cost effective school facilities enhance education and provides tips to protect capital investments and prioritize facility maintenance.
When maintaining a school, we pay not only for bricks and mortar, but also student and staff well-being. Effective school maintenance protects capital investment, ensures the health and safety of our children, and supports educational performance. - Chapter one
Next Steps
Framework
This framework is designed to help organizers, parents, and teachers find a common ground on the main reasons why Philadelphia schools are failing, and help create a pathway that will lead to actionable steps to create real improvement and change.
The top of this framework displays the root issue, and then breaks down into the main two sub-issues as addressed in this StoryMap: school conditions and school funding.
As we’ve highlighted in the “Where Do We Start” section, we recommend a bottom-to-top strategy that focuses on one school within a district subdivision at a time. Once that school sees improvement, the subdivision can turn their attention to the next school in the area that needs attention, and systematically use their successes to spread change.
The bottom left section of the framework illustrates the iterative nature of this process. As schools Assess, Aim, and Act to effect change, it is also important for them to reassess and begin the cycle over again, maintaining a feedback loop.
In this diagram, we want to emphasize that progress can be achieved in a number of ways and at different levels if one group or level has no progress or improvements in sight. If progress cannot be made at the city or district level, stakeholders could strive for one positive improvement at the local level.
Conclusion
We are 4 graduate students with a mission to help the local school advocates educate and inform the broader public about what students and staff experience in Philadelphia’s school buildings on a daily basis. We believe systemic change requires a bottom-to-top approach, where district subdivisions each rally around a school in need and work together to enact change before moving on to the next school. Each “win” will not only spark momentum, but also encourage advocacy on a community level. We hope this StoryMap will be used as a resource by all to help identify issues and put together plans for resolution.