With its negative, destructive, elitist perspective, the report is wrongheaded and useless

Sunday, September 28, 2003

A host of adjectives comes to mind when characterizing the just-released report of the Mayor's Commission on Public Education -- mean-spirited, destructive, grossly unfair, distorted and wholly misleading, to list just a few. The news conference Monday announcing the commission's report was nearly vicious in its tone.

	Albert Fondy is president of the Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers.

The completely negative and totally inaccurate first paragraph of the published report is illustrative: "The Pittsburgh Public Schools are beset by poor student performance, high costs, high taxes and a very public record of failed leadership and governance, and community indifference -- problems that dim the prospects of more than 35,000 children, tarnish a reputation for excellence that once attracted families to the city, and threaten efforts to ready Pittsburgh for a new century of progress and prosperity." Why even read the rest of the document?

Yet look at this startling contrast. What follows are direct quotes from the full version of the report, which either didn't appear or were obscured in the condensed version (widely circulated to media and reprinted in the Post-Gazette on Tuesday):

"When compared with other large and troubled urban districts, Pittsburgh's public schools tend to fare well." (I might add that when compared with all other urban districts in Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh is way ahead.)

"And in recent years, reading and math achievement scores have risen at all grade levels."

"There is reason for hope. Some promising instructional initiatives are under way and the public schools are staffed by a strong, experienced corps of teachers."

"Pittsburgh's elementary and middle schools perform somewhat better than those of other urban districts with high proportions of low-income and minority students."

"An analysis of achievement data from the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) indicates that Pittsburgh's average test scores in elementary and middle schools, in both reading and math, are higher than scores in schools that serve similar student populations elsewhere in the state."

"In high school, Pittsburgh's scores are comparable to those of schools serving similar populations."

"Not all of the academic indicators in the Pittsburgh Public Schools are grim. Student proficiency in reading and math remain low, but the district's overall PSSA scores have improved over the last several years."

"At all tested grade levels, average reading and math scores were higher in 2003 than they had been over the preceding six years. In fact, the district's gains in test scores consistently outpaced those of the state. The gap between Pittsburgh's scores and state averages has been narrowing, if gradually."

"If these results prove to be valid indicators, the Pittsburgh Public Schools should see substantial increases in proficiency rates on the fifth-grade PSSA exams over the next two years."

Here's why these findings were omitted or minimized in the condensed, final version of the report:

In the commission's attempt to justify not having an elected school board, the commission could not afford to cite all of the good work, positive outcomes, succeeding programs and genuine progress in the schools -- because that would run counter to any case for doing away with an elected board.

Some foundation representatives did not want to look as if they were wrong when they withdrew their funding a year ago. But they were wrong and they should not have taken that action, despite the discord that was prevalent then on the school board.

The timing and irony of the report are mind-boggling. The city just suffered an economic, personnel and public-confidence implosion!

How can anyone rationalize turning school board control and financial control over to a semi-bankrupt city? In stark and remarkable contrast, the school district is the only governmental entity -- city, county or state -- in sound financial condition, thanks to the elected school board structure that has been in place for more than a quarter of a century.

The Pittsburgh Public Schools are a genuine asset and plus for the city. Admittedly, a great deal needs to be done. But this has long been a sound and improving school system. Yet the report blatantly discredits the schools -- in order to drive a different agenda. It was chaired, directed and authored by an elitist perspective that did not look with favor on an elected school board.

The commission, or at least its chairs and director of the report, obviously had an "attitude" -- about the city schools, about maintaining an elected school board and about educational quality in the school system. Having been interviewed nine months ago by the director, I can personally attest to the validity of this assertion. The perspective she had when we talked, on all counts, never really changed.

The report was due five or six months ago. Internal disagreement among the commission members delayed its release. Some on the commission favored a balanced and constructive report. Unfortunately, the negative, destructive, elitist perspective eventually prevailed.

The commission should have had the sense to scrap this report. It deserves to be dead on arrival. Too many task force reports, on all manner of topics, often turn out to be of little value or use. This report will prove, deservedly so, to be a spectacular example again demonstrating this point.

E-mail this story   Print this story