I think you point out some very real problems here, Lisa, and certainly offer a part of the solution. But there is a problem that precedes any type of policy or program we could enact in the schools.... the way schools are funded is completely ridiculous. Schools are funded using local property taxes. You don't have to drive very long in the city to realize that certain parts of it have incredibly depressed property values. This causes incredibly sub-standard funding. To fix the problem, the city government has to raise property taxes even more.... and then even more people with money move outside the city, taking their property taxes with them. Are we really surprised that kids in Lower Merion are far exceeding the performance of kids at Bartram High when they receive fully twice as much funcing per student? Because of some state aid, Philadelphia students receive *almost* as much funding per student as the average student in the state. Kids in wealthy areas are still enjoying the benefits of massive amounts of government revenue being directed their way. If you were deliberatly trying to keep the poor people poor, and the rich people rich, it would be hard to come up with a better system.

What is happening in Philadelphia public schools is nothing short of tragic. Smaller schools are part of the answer, but equally important is allowing those schools the autonomy they need to enact the sort of findings that Professor Simon notes. Instead, all schools are forced to follow--with militaristic adherence-- a rather bizarre curriculum, that jumps all over the place and makes very little pedagogical sense. Who developed that curriculum, no one seems to know. It's not merely "teaching to the test," it's "teaching to the void." Students are depressed and cynical, not just at the underperforming but even at the high-performing public schools, because they feel they are being made to do busywork while the teachers sit at their desks, surfing the net or on their cells, calling their pals or glaring at them as they do their "graphic organizers" and other inane tasks designed by god knows who for god knows what end. Curriculum design seems to be a helter-skelter process, a hodge-podge of assignments thrown together by whoever knows somebody who knows somebody. Equally important --and to the shame of universities who vet and educate teachers -- we have a significant number of teachers who are simply unqualified to teach. They are in some cases nearly illiterate; in few cases do they know anything about the subject they are asked to teach. The system of educating teachers is as corrupt and complicit as is the educational system itself. No one should be granted a degree or certificate in education who hasn't established competence as a reader, writer, thinker, and master of the academic subject that she or he intends to teach. Third, the way that principals are chosen and operate leaves much to be desired. The cronyism in the Philadelphia Public School system is a disgrace. The incompetent choose and promote others who are incompetent, so that no one's incompetence is exposed. Once again, the university system plays a central role in producing incompetent teachers. If they were less geared to making money and more geared toward education as such (or if we eliminated schools of education altogether), our school system would be in much better shape. Fourth, we need to give teachers more pay and better working conditions. You can't expect to attract and retain good people if you give them low pay and lock them down, like prisoners, all day in a building. Teachers need offices, breaks between classes, and a lighter teaching load. It's ridiculous to expect people to do a good job when they are performing 6 hours a day, managing hundreds of students in some cases, on a daily basis. It's no wonder that they surf the net and leave students to fill out "graphic organizers." They're mentally exhausted and psychologically dispirited. Buildings, frankly, are the least of the problem. You can learn in a hut, in a tent, in a shack, in a home. But you need a great, motivated, educated teacher capable of motivating and educating students. Few disagree on the importance of a standardized curriculum. But the curriculum should be thoughtful, aimed at considered outcomes, with models of what is expected of students (currently all the school officials can say is something like, "we'll know it when we see it"!). There should also be some flexibility in how the curriculum is achieved. Some teachers are more comfortable teaching poetry while others prefer novels or essays. Some might like classic literature while others prefer contemporary literature. As long as they follow the curriculum, teaching students metaphors, analogies, foreshadowing, etc., they should allow the teachers to allow for their own passion and creativity to enter the classroom. As it stands, the curriculum underscores that everyone in the Phil School system thinks that its teachers are uneducated, unmotivated, incapable of teaching. They imagine therefore that if they hand them a micromanaged curriculum this will address the problem. Instead, it's just exacerbating it.