We all want reform that brings academic excellence, but an appointed school board would be counterproductive

Sunday, September 28, 2003

After months of delay, the Mayor's Commission on Public Education has finally joined the citywide debate about the future of the Pittsburgh Public Schools. For months now, the call for improving student achievement has reverberated across the city. Now we must heed that call. The 38 members of the commission have echoed the citizens on this point, but their recommendation for changing the structure of governance is out of tune.

	Patrick Dowd is the Democratic and Republican party nominee for the District 2 seat on the Pittsburgh Board of Public Eduction (patrickdowd@hotmail.com).

The withdrawal of foundation funding from the Pittsburgh Public Schools, the families who leave the city for the suburban school districts, the unprecedented grass roots coalition for reform in my district, and the commission's report all tell us the same thing: The schools must be rededicated to academic excellence for all.

All children must become literate and numerate. Older students must gain the skills necessary for the work force of the new millennium. The Board of Public Education must dedicate the resources necessary to eliminating the achievement gaps. The board must squeeze every dollar out of the district by closing schools and channeling the resources to improving student performance. The consensus has emerged: For our citizens and our students, academic performance is of paramount importance.

Two aspects of the report threaten to destroy the momentum of the emerging consensus.

The first threat is the demoralizing tone of the report. Our schools have faults and they must be addressed immediately. However, excellence can easily be found in Pittsburgh's schools. To report anything less is to tarnish the work of tens of thousands of students and thousands of teachers and administrators. To turn our backs on the great good being done every day is to alienate the very people with and for whom we must all work.

The more dangerous threat to the growing consensus is the recommendation for a radical restructuring of the governance system. Currently, the Pittsburgh Public Schools are governed by a nine-member board. The commission claims that the board's by-district election system leads to "narrow perspectives." Denying citizens the power to elect representatives, the commission recommends that the mayor nominate board members from a pool of qualified candidates.

City Council would have the authority to approve the nominations. The board would have no taxing authority, leaving City Council responsible for voting the Pittsburgh Public Schools "adequate funding to meet school district needs."

Underlying the logic of this recommendation are several assumptions. It assumes that City Council knows and understands the needs of the schools. It also assumes that City Council would be less provincial than the board and the mayor more accountable to voters. An appointed Board of Public Education would further entangle our children's education with the very politics that have obscured consensus in the past. Mayors, past and present, have long involved themselves in the business of the board.

Our current mayor's financial and political support of school board candidates is a matter of public record and must be evaluated. Extrapolating from past patterns, we can imagine the look and feel of the appointed board. Now and in the future, the board would consist of appointees loyal to the mayor and his or her political agenda, which does not guarantee a serious commitment to learning.

We must remember, too, that any mayor's primary responsibility is to the city residents, not the students. And at times the two may conflict. Consider the city's recent budgetary crisis.

While looking for ways to save money, the mayor laid off crossing guards, leaving our children caught in the traffic of politics. The board had no alternative but to bend to his wishes. In the future, the pressure would be more easily applied and the targets could be a new reading program or a facilities project. In fact, it is not beyond the pale to imagine the district's funds being raided to finance projects like a new arena. The problem with the governance structure is that it is too closely connected to city politics, and until we disentangle the schools, the growing consensus is imperiled.

Elections are a corrective mechanism, and most recently the citizens of Pittsburgh raised a loud and clear collective voice. Even before the release of the report, the new Board of Public Education, which will be installed in December, had begun responding to the call for improved student achievement.

There is much in the commission's report that merits consideration and action. However, if we as a city get bogged down in the pointless debate over the governance structure, we will squander our energies and resources on something that is sure to divide.

The consensus is in front of us. For the well-being of the students and the future of the city, let us put aside old differences and ignore everything but getting down to the business of building educational excellence for all children in Pittsburgh.

E-mail this story   Print this story