I have read with interest the reactions to the recent report of the Mayor's Commission on Public Education. Clearly, the Pittsburgh Public School face complicated, even onerous challenges, especially in light of the current highly charged political climate. What worries me about so many discussions of education is that they focus on "quantification" (e.g., budgets and test scores) rather than the core qualities that yield good educational environments and experiences for students.

		Gary J. Niels is head of Winchester Thurston School, a K-12 independent day school with campuses in Shadyside and Hampton.

As the headmaster of one of Pittsburgh's independent schools, and with 25 years experience as an independent school educator, I have a unique perspective on these qualities.

Independent schools have had a societal impact well beyond the small market they serve. Their record should not be dismissed as solely attributable to the misperception that independent school students come from wealthy, high-achieving families. Rather, their inordinate impact arises from core qualities that are essential to the success of all schools.

Freedom to teach.

Knowledgeable and creative teachers who are free to apply their skills, training and creativity, and to develop course content -- this is what fosters great educational experiences for students. This freedom attracts and keeps gifted teachers despite the fact that they are paid between 70 and 90 percent of their public school counterparts. While independent schools do exercise curricular oversight -- most often via department chairs who are advanced in their subject knowledge and teaching experience -- our programs are free from prescribed curriculum imparted by a team of "experts" and handed down to teachers by administrators.

Freedom to hire the best teachers.

The freedom of independent school principals to select highly qualified teachers without being bound by bureaucratic processes that require certification or even the hiring of a tenured teacher instead of the most qualified one, enables principals to mold their schools to a specific mission, and to the characteristics and standards best suited for the educational setting.

I'm not opposed to the education courses required in the certification process. I have a degree in education. But many education courses do little to enhance academic excellence, and some are a complete waste of time. In many public schools the hiring system has become an obstacle to the employment of bright, creative and talented newcomers to education.

Freedom to evaluate teacher performance.

Determining that a particular teacher is consistently failing to foster a positive learning experience for her or his students is a process that requires an effective evaluation system. When it is determined -- thoughtfully and analytically -- that a teacher is ineffective, school principals need the freedom to make a change, provided they do so according to all fair employment practices.

Any system that protects teachers' security at the expense of student progress is at odds with sound educational practice.

As one who has been hiring and evaluating teachers, promoting robust academic standards and good pedagogical practices while also seeking to foster a stable, trusting and cohesive school community, I know the balance is delicate but doable, but only because I lead in an educational system that allows for this to occur.

Freedom to lead.

As the head of an independent school, I answer to a Board of Trustees of approximately 25 men and women -- some are alumni, some are current parents, some are business leaders, and some are civic-minded individuals. The board's most important responsibility, aside from fiscal oversight, is the hiring and annual evaluation of the school head. My relationship with the board thrives because of the freedom the members give me to lead the school.

When I consider the restrictions and micromanaging to which Superintendent John Thompson is subject, I marvel at his tenacity. Last year, as I read newspaper accounts of the school board's exchanges with Dr. Thompson, I found them to be utterly misguided; it seemed obvious that individuals on the board were attempting to run the city schools by preventing Dr. Thompson from doing so.

One of the reasons I love my work is the freedom the board gives me to exercise my experience, talents, views and creativity.

I hasten to add that they are cognizant of my potential to make mistakes, and we work together in an atmosphere that provides support, not condemnation. This model of head/board relations is commonly known and understood in independent schools.

Responsibility to the marketplace.

With freedom comes responsibility. One of the most motivating and fear-inspiring aspects of independent schools is that they exist in a marketplace. Any problem within the school, or any perception that we are not delivering on our promise, has the potential to reverberate through the community and affect our funding -- through decreases in enrollment demand or downturns in the annual voluntary contributions of parents, alumni and trustees that are essential to offset the disparity between tuition income and expenses.

This close connection between the quality of educational performance and the marketplace is a tremendous benefit. It drives us. It tempers us. It's both a motivator and a monitor.

When I mentally place myself within a system that is inherently secure -- in other words, supported by tax dollars and systemically bolstered with limited actual threat to existence -- I shudder to think of working in an environment that lacks the motivating influence for continuous improvement. I am aware that there is some measure of accountability in public schools; witness the decision of the three Pittsburgh foundations to withhold funding last year.

Nonetheless, for the most part public schools do not have to answer to a marketplace. Certainly there are advantages to this, but this lack of competition and accountability to the wider community is a deficiency in the public school system.

While I'm not so naive as to suggest that public schools should become fully independent entities, more can be done to foster a competitive system.

There have been attempts, such as open enrollment among public schools, privatization, voucher plans and the magnet and charter school movements, all motivated by marketplace accountability. Nevertheless, in general public school bureaucracy usually resists these types of plans, sometimes with good reasons, but sometimes solely because of their potential to threaten a school system's security.

Core qualities that foster ideal educational environments are important to both independent and public schools. The strand that binds these qualities together is educational freedom.

With its roots in the development of the assembly line, public education seems to have been conceived to minimize freedom and micro-manage participants -- from superintendents to principals to teachers to students -- in order to reduce risk and produce a product on a time table.

No matter who controls Pittsburgh's schools, I hope they seek to foster the core qualities that have enabled independent schools to create positive educational environments and experiences for students.