Whither Duquesne schools?
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Tuesday, Jan. 29, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Who would not want quality education and stable finances from a public school district? This is precisely the goal of the recovery for the Duquesne City School District.
Though Duquesne once boasted superb achievement by its students, the situation has changed. K-6 test scores in reading and mathematics are now among the lowest in the state. The children deserve better.
Not only education has changed. In better times, Duquesne was a thriving city that supported excellent schools. However, the economy of the community has weakened, and for 12 years the district has been in financial distress.
The recovery plan for the district must address these unsatisfactory situations, both educational and financial. To do so, four scenarios are being studied.
1. Continue to operate the K-6 program as it is now exists. This scenario provides a baseline to compare the other three.
2. Place K-6 students at nearby public schools with voluntary agreements between the receiving school districts and the Duquesne City School District. The receiving schools would need to have adequate classroom capacity and appropriate academic programs, and tuition would have to be affordable to Duquesne.
3. Like the above scenario, place K-6 students in classes at nearby schools, but enrollment and tuition would be mandated. New legislation would be needed.
4. Establish a charter school in Duquesne City for K-6 students. The charter school would be selected by a competitive proposal process. This scenario is not financially viable without new legislation or some extraordinary new revenue source.
Paul B. Long
The writer is the Pennsylvania Department of Education's chief recovery officer for the Duquesne City School District.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Lebo’s coyotes
- Enslaving themselves
- We pay to keep poor warm
- Conspicuous by absence
- Drought answer?
- Saved her life
- Fix icy hazard on Rt. 66