Issue Summary (Updated January 2009)
Pittsburgh Public Schools

The Issue:

The Pittsburgh Public School system is too expensive, with general fund expenditures of nearly $20,000 per pupil. For these outlays, taxpayers are not getting a decent return as the district’s pupils continue to rank near the bottom of academic achievement across the state. As a result of high taxes and poor academic performance, the district continues to lose students with enrollment falling below 27,000, from 38,500 in 2001. In order to reverse this trend, the City and the School District have embraced a college scholarship program called the Pittsburgh Promise.

What We Know:

Despite spending lots of money on a per student basis, only 53 percent of 11th graders scored proficient on state reading exams and 44 percent scored proficient on math exams. At some high schools the proficiency level is less than 20 percent.

The district is hemorrhaging enrollment at a greater rate than the continuing declines of the City of Pittsburgh. Parents of school age children are moving to other school districts or looking for private, religious, or charter school options for educating their children.

Now the City, the School District and the foundation community has launched the Pittsburgh Promise, a program that would guarantee college aid to City public school students who maintain a minimum grade point average and attend a pre-approved post- secondary institution. The program amounts to little less than a bribe and is a poor substitute for a quality education.

Recommendations:

There is a better way. Pittsburgh could make a bold statement by offering families in the District a $10,000 voucher (1/2 of what they are currently spending per student) to send children to the school of their choice. Parents opting to take the vouchers would obviously forgo any Promise scholarship funds for their child, so those who choose the $10,000 would clearly value education quality now above the Promise scholarship money that requires keeping their kids in Pittsburgh schools for many years. Does the District have the courage to try that experiment? Doubtful if the past is any guide.

More simply, they could also simply reduce per student outlays by $5,000 to a far more reasonable, but still high, $15,000. Based on an enrollment of 26,000, that reduction would free up $130 million for scholarships, vouchers, or an assortment of other programs without the unseemly necessity of going to foundations and corporations for additional money for education in a City that already spends far too much for far too little return.

Issue Summary (Updated January 2009)
Teacher Strikes in Pennsylvania

The Issue:

Pennsylvania leads the nation in the number of teacher strikes. Nearly sixty percent of the 164 nationwide strikes since 2000 occurred in Pennsylvania. While the number of strikes has declined since the inception of Act 88 in 1992 (mandating 180 days of school to be completed by June 15th), there needs to be a stricter legislation that either eliminates the right of teachers to strike or imposes tough penalties if they do so.

What We Know:

While thirteen states across the nation permit teachers to strike (Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wisconsin), the majority of teacher strikes since 2000 have taken place in three states: Pennsylvania (94), Ohio (28), and Illinois (29). It is plain to see that Pennsylvania, which is already in a minority since it is one of the few states where teachers can strike, is far and away the leader in actual stoppages.

Prohibitory strike laws with prescribed and serious penalties, supported by court rulings, are effective in preventing strikes as demonstrated by Florida, Georgia, New York, Tennessee, and other states where no strikes occur. In Florida, employees who strike can be terminated and unions receive fines for damages up to $20,000 per strike day and face decertification. Georgia and Tennessee also reserve the right to terminate a striking teacher who will then have to wait three years before they can apply for re-employment. In New York, the Taylor Law imposes a penalty of two days lost pay for every day on strike. The union also loses its concession to check off dues for one year.

Recommendations:

Teacher strikes harm students, families, and communities. Strikes have financial as well as social consequences. Financial burdens are conveyed by increased property taxes due to inflated teacher contracts and childcare costs during the strike. Social consequences are displayed by strained relationships between teachers and the community and parents. Therefore, strikes reveal the selfish interests of unions and teachers at the public’s expense. Teachers are public employees and servants and should act accordingly. Teachers who strike should incur consequences for their actions. Two recommendations that would curtail the willingness and motivation for teachers to hit the picket line are:

1) Impose a penalty that takes away two days pay and benefits for each day teachers miss regularly scheduled school time;

2) Mandate a school year consisting of 180 days of instruction would have to be met by May 31st.

The first recommendation will provide an economic penalty for striking and alter the bargaining balance away from the heavy way it now favors the teachers and penalizes school boards and taxpayers. The primary benefit of the second recommendation would be to put a stop to end of year strikes that create such inconvenience and disruption for students who are graduating and those needing to get summer jobs underway and to end the disruption families face through the postponement of graduation ceremonies.

In short, teachers who are held accountable for their actions are far less likely to strike.