Meeting of minds necessary for Youngstown city schools

While we have consistently and enthusiastically supported the work of the two state commissions that are guiding the recovery of the Youngstown City School District, we also have urged close cooperation.

One of the major contributors to the system’s academic and financial collapse has been the provincial attitudes on the part of various interest groups.

It’s difficult enough to have a successful school district when a significant percentage of the students are considered “at risk.” But, when the administration, the school board, the principals, the teachers, parent organizations and other community entities are at odds, then success is even more difficult to attain.

That is why we have hailed the involvement of the state fiscal oversight commission and the state academic distress commission. Unfortunately, their presence in Youngstown is the result of the school district being declared in fiscal emergency by the state auditor and in academic emergency by the state superintendent of public instruction. In other words, failure forced the state to get directly involved.

Guidance

The fiscal commission was created in 2006 and has guided the district to financial stability; the academic commission was appointed last year and has developed an academic recovery plan that was recently approved by state Superintendent Deborah Delisle.

Thus, there is reason for optimism — and our strong support.

So, imagine our surprise when we read the reaction from distress commission Chairwoman Debra Mettee to a suggestion from school board President Anthony Catale for a meeting of the two commissions and the school board.

Mettee, who is superintendent of the Springfield Local School District, was unequivocal in her opposition to such a session.

That’s unfortunate. The Youngstown school district is almost a pilot project in the overall public education system in Ohio. There isn’t another district that is in fiscal and academic emergency. Thus, there is no blueprint for charting the recovery.

Mettee’s contention that the two state commissions are separate, independent entities with their own roles is not revealing, in and of itself. But the underlying message is what should worry the taxpayers. This isn’t about giving up power or diminishing the statutory authority of each commission.

A meeting of the minds is about everybody understanding how the academic recovery plan impacts the overall operation of the school district, how the fiscal commission believes the school board can address the financial obligations that will have to be met to implement the plan, and how board members fit into the overall scheme of things.

We fully understand Mettee’s contention that her panel’s directive is very specific, but we find it inconceivable that state law that created the academic and fiscal commissions prohibits the kind of meeting of the main players suggested by Catale.

Stakeholders

State Superintendent Delisle and her staff should find a way to facilitate such a session. Indeed, it should be public so the stakeholders in the school district have a chance to hear from the individuals who have been intimately involved in the recovery endeavor.

Such a session is warranted because Mettee and her colleagues have asked the school board to hire someone to work with the fiscal oversight commission in the implementation of the academic-recovery plan. The individual would be paid by the district.

This is in addition to the three other positions the academic distress panel has created to facilitate the implementation of the recovery plan.

That’s a lot of money being spent on experts, and the taxpayers have a right to know how a school district will foot the bill.