Philly schools are suing the city over a law it says could keep buildings from opening in the fall

The Philadelphia School District on Friday filed a lawsuit against the city over legislation officials said could jeopardize the opening of some school buildings this fall.

The unprecedented move comes months after City Council passed a law designed to strengthen environmental conditions in the district by forming a public oversight board to determine standards and judge whether school buildings can safely house staff and students.

It also creates a public fissure between the school board and the city officials who established the board just five years ago after 17 years of state oversight. School board members are selected by the mayor and confirmed by City Council.

School board president Reginald Streater, who said he believed the litigation is the “culmination of decades of chronic underfunding,” noted that the district alone is authorized by state law to determine whether schools open or close, and that children struggle academically and socially when unable to access face-to-face learning.

“Any action, even if well-intentioned, that threatens to remove children from in-person education, will be met with the requisite response from the School District of Philadelphia and its Board of Education,” Streater said in a statement. The law, he said, “could needlessly threaten the opening of many district school buildings at the start of the next school year, jeopardizing the health, safety, and welfare of our students, especially those who rely on our buildings for shelter and services.”

Sarah Peterson, a spokesperson for Mayor Jim Kenney, said that overcoming the challenges of “decades of disinvestment” in Philadelphia schools “requires partnership and problem-solving between the district, city, and other stakeholders. We believe this goal is best achieved through collaboration and not through litigation.”

Council President Darrell L. Clarke and Councilmember Isaiah Thomas, education committee chair, said in a statement that discussions about academic improvements can’t happen if buildings aren’t safe.

“It’s unfortunate that the School District has decided that this must be addressed in court, rather than providing a comprehensive plan to modernize and safeguard our schools,” said Clarke and Thomas, who also noted disparities in building conditions among district schools. “To respond to a plan to get rid of asbestos and other hazards with a lawsuit reinforces that the school district is working to maintain the status quo, rather than working collaboratively to bring our schools into the 21st century.”

Passed unanimously by City Council in May and signed by Kenney in June, the law requires one-third of city public and charter schools inspected for safety issues — including asbestos, water quality, and lead paint — by Aug. 1. The next third would have to be inspected in 2024, and the final group would be checked in 2025. Buildings could not open unless the district accepted the oversight panel’s demands, a proposition that could translate to millions of dollars in repairs.

Historically, the school system has been solely responsible for ensuring its buildings are safe, inspecting possible environmental issues and fixing them. Federal law requires school buildings with known asbestos-containing materials to be examined every three years, for instance; in other cases, people who work inside school buildings flag issues they discover, though the district typically has a backlog of hundreds of work orders, limited resources and staff, drawing criticism from teachers and parents alike.

Ultimately, the new law gives the city’s managing director the final say on whether buildings can stay open, after weighing recommendations from the new advisory board, which comprises environmental experts, representatives from the district, City Council, Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, and other unions, parent groups, and students.

Streater likened the lawsuit, filed Friday in federal court, to a “family disagreement,” and expressed concerns that the law gives power to a group that includes people with “no specific scientific, technical or environmental expertise or licensing.” (The district employs and contracts with such experts.)

He also said the law “puts us at odds with the federal environmental regulations governing every U.S. school district, as well as local and state mandates.”

District officials “value our relationship with the city and share common goals,” school board vice president Mallory Fix-Lopez said. “This suit allows us to clarify how we focus our resources in the best interest of our learners and school communities.”

The school board pointed to “substantial improvements” in its 200-plus buildings, including 168 schools with “lead-safe” or “lead-free” certifications, and 1,665 “hydration stations” installed.

“There is more to be done, for certain,” Streater said. “And this law will hamper our ability to maintain this progress.”

The school system has long struggled with facilities issues, particularly around lead, mold, and asbestos; officials estimate it would take about $5 billion to fully remediate all district schools, which have periodically been forced to shut over environmental issues.

The legislation was proposed in September 2021, weeks after two district schools, Science Leadership Academy-Beeber and Masterman, dealt with asbestos issues at the start of that school year. Then-City Councilmember Derek Green introduced the legislation, and said at the time he was frustrated the public was “in the dark about what is really going on inside our school facilities — where our kids, teachers and faculty spend much of their time.”

Green is now running for mayor, as are several other former Council members who cosponsored or voted for the legislation: Allan Domb, Helen Gym, and Maria Quiñones Sánchez.

Reached Friday, Green said it was “unfortunate that the school board is using litigation, as opposed to using action to remove asbestos and other hazardous conditions from our schools. As opposed to just complaining, the district could have participated in helping to make this legislation more workable from their perspective.”

The legal action drew immediate concern from PFT President Jerry Jordan, whose union has battled the administration on environmental issues for years. The district, which has “fought us at every turn” over building conditions, has made a “wrongheaded and disheartening” move, Jordan said in a statement.

“Data and information-sharing, as well as remediation plans, have been spotty at best, and the bill passed by City Council allows a base layer of oversight into some of the most critical remediation processes,” said Jordan.

Those familiar with the matter said the district felt unfairly targeted: When first proposed, the legislation applied only to district schools, although it was expanded to include charter schools. Private and parochial schools are exempt.

What the lawsuit means for district-city relations was not immediately clear. The school board has no tax-raising abilities, and instead relies on the city and state for most of its funds.