Gordon, Brooks notes, “said his job was ‘to help poor people.’ Well, no one asked for your help…. Every couple years, they come up with a new philosophy about what’s best—instead of funding the schools.”
“Change is the only option,” declared Mark Gleason, the PSP’s chief executive, in testimony before state legislators in 2013. “We may not fully know which changes will make the most difference, which will transform outcomes for poor and minority students. But we have some good clues—we even have some proof points right here in Philadelphia—and we know the status quo is most definitely not working for disadvantaged students. The debate we should be having is about which changes are worth trying—not about saving a failed system.”
-"How to Destroy a Public School System"
The first quote stood out to me because of its straightforwardness and bluntness; here is an example of a person who is experiencing the issue firsthand and has a clear idea of what the solution could be (and is telling you themselves): more funding for schools! Funding without restrictions, funding without "philosophy" (that often comes from a top-down level in which people who have little experience functioning in an under-funded school seem to think they know exactly how to improve it), and without having to "earn" or "deserve" funding (by looking at students' test scores or other problematic ways of measuring success). If education is actually a fundamental right for people, school funding should be a fundamental right, as well.
The second quote stood out to me because it felt like another example of a person out of touch with the currently operating system or not willing to engage with the system voicing an opinion on how it can be "changed" or "fixed." It's so clear to me from reading this article that the school system in Philly, far from being an equalizer, is instead used as another instution that holds up oppressive ideals about who matters in society.