Patrick Henry “The Little School That Could” by Style Weekly
Awesome photo by Scott Elmquist of Style Weekly
The headline is on the cover of today’s Style Weekly but Style also poses the question, “Is the city’s first charter school an innovative alternative? Or a drain on an already financially strapped school system?” That question is sure to be debated in the coming weeks as RPS struggles to fill in $23 million budget shortfall caused by cuts in State funding and the possible closing of Fisher. The article (Full Style Weekly Article) doesn’t give you a definitive answer to the question but definitely gives you some insight into the school and interaction between the PHSSA board, parents, and RPS board.
Where does that leave Patrick Henry School? The same place it’s always been, underneath a microscope with a perhaps hostile lab partner in the Richmond schools.
In all likelihood, the two sides will continue to butt heads, even as they publicly declare a willingness to work together. For example, the Richmond schools are pushing Patrick Henry to shelve its plan to take ownership of the building that it’s already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars renovating.
Patrick Henry’s board wants Richmond schools and City Council to declare the building as surplus and transfer ownership to the Patrick Henry Foundation, which will allow the board to use the property as collateral and secure additional funds for renovations. The School Board, however, has so far balked at the plan.
Vernal Coleman’s article today in Style Weekly is as revealing for what it says as what it does not say. I would submit as disingenuous, the statement that Patrick Henry has received, “broad political support”. Perhaps this is accurate if “broad political support” is measured in words and photo opportunities, rather than deeds. Has Patrick Henry received substantive support from Richmond’s political community, recognizing how critical this school’s success is to our City’s future?
By way of example, the Fifth District representative attempted last May to secure PHCS funding through City Council. Unfortunately, he felt it strategically prudent to make this effort while simultaneously demanding Kathy Graziano’s resignation, attempting to cut $400,000.00 from Parks maintenance (including $100,000.00 from the James River System), and attacking the integrity of Commonwealth’s Attorney Mike Herring. Can this effort be described in any respect, as effective “political support”?
Any strategy which Richmond plans to implement which seeks to address our current poverty-rate must recognize the need for successful educational options. If Richmond continues to view the coexistence of charter schools and the Richmond Public School System as a zero-sum game, there will never be an effective strategy to improving our educational system.
Rigorous charter and public schools will allow children the opportunity to excel and grow, and hopefully surmount their challenging domestic circumstances. Additionally, the existence of successful charter and public schools will potentially ameliorate the flight of middle-class families, seeking the quality of suburban school systems. This will reduce the broad socio-economic divide in Richmond, expand our tax base and create additional revenue to commit to further educational improvements across Richmond.
RPS should be commended for their forbearance as Patrick Henry has worked to fulfill the charter requirements. However, if RPS is cannot actively assist charter schools in a substantive way, our elected representatives should be seeking solutions and offering assistance. Then and only then, will we be able to assert that charter schools have received broad political support.
Does Gammino’s comment represent 3 comments? Where
are the other two?
No Carolyn, that is some sort of bug to do with either somenoeTweets or likes this on Facebook. I’ll look into it. There are no other comments.
I can’t understand the schizophrenic nature of the RPS – every time they say anything about Patrick Henry, they manage to negate it the very next time they speak! The building currently in use was closed by RPS rather than spend the money to upgrade it to meet ADA guidelines. In order to use the building, the PHSSA Board had to raise the money through funding to retrofit to meet those guidelines, without much visible assistance or support from RPS. (At least, none visible to me – other may have seen another scenario.) It has taken a lot of time and work by the parents and board to make the school as clean, useful, attractive, functional and accessible as it currently is – this is called sweat equity by professional remodelers. Now, this school which RPS was willing to lose rather than fix, is serving a whole new generation of children, and now RPS has decided it’s too valuable to let go? THEY don’t have any equity in it whatever at this time – that is all held by the families and board of PHSSA (remember – sweat equity). I think it’s a simple matter of dog(s) in the manger. But then, every interaction we have had with them should have prepared us for this attitude. Sign me (once again), Disgusted.
Michelle, what I understand is that although RPS doesn’t own the building, they stand to earn money if they return it to the city and the building is sold. Why they should benefit from the sale of a building that they let fall into neglect is beyond me. If they decide that PHSSA has not met the charter agreement, they can take back over a building that is in MUCH better shape than what they started with. RPS didn’t pay the 500,000 to renovate that building.
I think the city has a prior right to the buildinmg. RPS controls it so long as it is used for an educational purpose. If it is vacated and declared surplus, it reverts to the city, which would receive any proofit from a sale.
Clearly reverse racism by the school board.
How come no one just comes out and says it?
Because we’ve spent enough time calling each other racists. it kind of stops the discussion.
David, isn’t it true that the land where the school building is
located is part of Forest Hill Park and cannot be sold. If the building is sold, it will have no parking facilities?? VEPCO (the parent company for Dominion) sold the park to the City for a minimal amount in 1933 in exchange for allowing the company to replace the streetcars with bus lines? VEPCO seemed to have had a contract or charter to provide transportation.
Beautiful snow out for anyone to be on the computer.
I haven’t heard those stories. The land does not show on the park plats as belonging to the park. But DPRCF does nopt “own” the park, the city does, just as DPW does not “own” property. Property is owned by the city and managed by various departments. Contrary to belief property designated as park property CAN be sold, the process is just more burdensome.