Sen. Lloyd Smucker, a Republican and chairman of the state Senate Education Committee, is proposing legislation that could put poorly performing school districts under state control. That prompts the questions: Why are some districts failing, and would state takeover of only failing districts be the best solution?

In response to Smucker’s plan, Donna Cooper, a former top official of Gov. Rendell’s administration, was quoted as saying: “A school without books, with class sizes of 30, without full-day kindergarten or prekindergarten, a school without a nurse, is going to fail. It doesn’t matter who runs it.”

Sen. Andrew Dinniman, a Democrat and minority chairman of the Education Committee, noted that the majority of the schools that fail are in poor urban areas. Poverty becomes the common denominator among poorly performing schools.

Radnor Township in Delaware County has an average family income of $96,122 and average property value of $558,426. It ranks fifth on Pennsylvania’s 500 school district ratings. Reading has an average family income of $25,567 and an average property value of $64,300.00. It ranks 452th among school districts.

Many school districts derive a high proportion of school revenue from real estate taxes. It follows that those communities with high property values have necessary revenues to invest to make their district superior.

This is quite clearly supported by the fact that school districts in the most affluent communities are rated among the best in performance and those in poverty areas are among the lowest. Is it fair that intelligent children living in poverty-stricken districts be deprived of an education equal in quality afforded to children in affluent districts?

The Pennsylvania System of School Assessment is a standardized test administered to public schools to determine the quality of the education in all districts. Can such a standardized test work when the districts are far from standardized — i.e., standardized being equal opportunity afforded to each student? It appears that the PSSAs measure more learning opportunity rather than student ability.

Albert Einstein, who revolutionized the study of physics, is credited with saying, “We can never solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”

One radical approach could be for the state to take over all school districts. Each district could receive 100 percent of necessary funds from state income and sales taxes. This would eliminate the need for personal school real estate taxes, thereby ending possible foreclosures on homes of poverty-level families or seniors on fixed incomes.

All districts could enjoy state-financed full-day kindergarten as well as pre-K programs. This would dramatically reduce school dropouts. The state could establish one statewide school board comprised of paid teaching professionals of the quality equal to its existing Distinguished Educator Initiative.

This elite group is assigned the task to evaluate why some districts are failing. Thomas Persing, a member of this group, was hired in 2009 to study the troubled Bethlehem Area School District; after highlighting deficiencies, he corrected them as Bethlehem’s acting superintendent.

With the state in control of public education, the need for local school boards would end, thus eliminating the possibility of micromanaging.

Statewide standardization could be achieved by this professional educational board, which would appoint all district superintendents, prepare standardized courses of study in all subjects, prescribe excellent textbooks and prepare standardized final exams for all courses, thus eliminating the need for PSSAs.

Clearly, the state’s system of public education, by allowing a class system founded on affluence, is not working. Is it time for a radical change? Nothing might be lost but there is much to gain — better educated children.

The Morning Call – September 14, 2015 – Leer artículo en línea