Four years after a private management company assumed responsibility for most of the Chester-Upland, Pa., schools, the system is in dire financial and academic straits, and is considering letting the contract expire.
The impoverished district southwest of Philadelphia has been widely watched as an example of state intervention in an ailing school system. Pennsylvania has been in charge of Chester鈥檚 finances since 1994 and all of its operations since 2000. The 7,500-student district has also sparked debate about the benefits of private school management, since eight of its nine schools are run by New York City-based Edison Schools Inc.
Worsening budget and financial-reporting problems last spring, followed by overcrowding and brawling at the district鈥檚 high school last fall, sharpened the focus on Chester鈥檚 management. A recent flurry of local and state reports has scrutinized everything from the district鈥檚 bookkeeping to its curriculum and found precious little to praise.
The district could run out of money by May, and by June is anticipated to run a $5.3 million deficit on an annual operating budget of $80 million. Last spring saw 70 percent or more of Chester鈥檚 students scoring at the basic level or below on state tests.
Chester-Upland鈥檚 search for a new superintendent has reignited discussion about how the schools should be run and by whom.
A New Phase
Charles A. Scott, the interim superintendent, has submitted to the state a plan that envisions Edison鈥檚 completion of its work there in the spring of 2006, when its contract expires.
鈥淚t鈥檚 time for a rebirth,鈥� said Mr. Scott, who was tapped by state Secretary of Education Francis V. Barnes in December, when the previous superintendent departed amid state criticism. 鈥淚t鈥檚 at a point where, for the district to go forward, they have to make this kind of a decision.鈥�
Mr. Scott said he believes that 鈥渟elf-operating is in the best interest of the children of the school district,鈥� largely because of 鈥渃ommunity dissatisfaction鈥� with the present arrangement.
He also believes that having the district operate its own schools would make Chester-Upland a more appealing prospect for a new superintendent. The district hopes a new leader will be in place this summer.
Secretary Barnes, who has served in his post for four months, said in a recent interview that he has nothing against private management if it works. It would be unwise for Chester, however, to part ways with Edison unless it has a sound, detailed management plan, he said.
The state schools chief said he has sought a series of reports from the district on its finances, management, and safety as part of the effort to help it set its direction.
鈥淚鈥檓 adamant about not letting emotion drive the decisionmaking process,鈥� he said. 鈥淗aving a goal saying we should reclaim the district is a noble goal, but if you don鈥檛 have the infrastructure or the wherewithal to produce that, then it鈥檚 shortsighted.鈥�
Richard W. O鈥橬eill, an Edison general manager and senior vice president who oversees operations in Chester, said the company has been hamstrung by many factors, most of which are beyond its control.
He faults Edison itself for failing to install strong school administrators quickly enough. But he said the district often made staffing and supplying schools difficult by delaying decisions, including signing Edison鈥檚 contracts.
Even with a $4.1 million annual contract, Edison has not made a profit in Chester, Mr. O鈥橬eill said. Edison officials are discussing whether the company should remain in Chester after its current contract expires, he said.
Michael F.X. Gillin, who chairs the state board of control that oversees the district, said he believes Edison has done a good job in a dysfunctional district. One middle school has seen a significant rise in test scores, he noted, and a new high school principal is infusing positive energy there.
Not Enough Change?
The board鈥攚hose three current members were appointed in January 2003 by former state Secretary of Education Charles Zogby鈥攈as let Edison run the schools while most of its attention is consumed by money problems, he said.
Some observers believe both state control and privatization in Chester haven鈥檛 produced strong results because the changes didn鈥檛 go far enough.
Todd Ziebarth, a policy analyst at the Denver-based consulting firm of Augenblick, Palaich & Associates, said that even though Pennsylvania installed a control board in Chester, it allowed private companies鈥攖hree at first, then only Edison after one company backed out and another was bought by Edison鈥攖o try to solve the problems and 鈥渄idn鈥檛 actively engage in managing the effort,鈥� he said.
Edison also wasn鈥檛 given enough authority or resources to fully implement its model, he said. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 think anyone there would argue it鈥檚 a success story,鈥� Mr. Ziebarth said.
Thomas E. Persing, a retired schools superintendent who served on the Chester control board from 1998 to 2003, said he doesn鈥檛 believe schools in Chester will improve without a major community revitalization.
鈥淓dison had a lot of turmoil of its own, and never invested what it thought it could,鈥� he said. 鈥淭he state took over and didn鈥檛 know what it was doing. This is a whole community issue. And there鈥檚 enough blame to go around for all of us.鈥�
