WASHINGTON COUNTY NEEDS EQUALITY IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

 

As a child in New Jersey, I attended a neighborhood elementary school.  Most of the students walked to and from school, creating shortcuts through yards and wood lots whenever possible. As post-war baby boomers, our classes were large and filled with promise. We grew-up and learned next to our best friends and neighbors.

The regional high school I attended was a shock to my young system. Thirteen elementary schools fed into one large high school. The student body was 95% white and Protestant. It took me well over a year to become adjusted to the immense campus. The bus rides to and from the front door were 45 minutes. For after school sports and other activities, bus rides were at least 90 minutes. Through four years of high school, I never came to know many of the students in my class.

Much different was the public school education of my spouse who attended classes and taught for over thirty years in the Washington School District.  The elementary schools were in neighborhoods with one nearby central high school. In the 1970s, the elementary schools were integrated via busing and later consolidated into one campus. The high school provided a diverse learning experience; helping its students prepare for a world filled with people, who did not all look or think alike.

Today, living in East Washington, I think about these different learning environments in reviewing the public schools of Washington County. There are a number of rating agencies that grade the quality of education at each school district. Not surprisingly, Peters Township, Canon-McMillan and Trinity Area School Districts are at the top of the list. All three receive high marks for teaching and academics. The Washington School District only receives a high rating for diversity.

To provide some other comparisons, Peters Township has a 9-12 enrollment of 1326, is ranked seventh within the Commonwealth, has a minority enrollment of 8%, and 6% of its students are economically disadvantaged.  In contrast, Washington High School enrollment is 422, it is ranked 345th within Pennsylvania, the total minority enrollment is 49%, and 93% of students are economically disadvantaged.  

With this degree of disparity, one would assume that the Washington School District would receive more funds than Peters to help its disadvantaged students catch up to their wealthy neighbors. Unfortunately, the reality is the opposite. In Pennsylvania, we have created a school funding system where the students who need the most get the least because of where they live.

According to the Pennsylvania Education Law Center, our school funding system shortchanges students of low-wealth school districts. 50% of the state’s Black students and 40% of Latin students attend schools in the lowest wealth districts. Overall, 86% of Pennsylvania’s students attend underfunded schools.

The reason for this gross inequality is simple. The low share of school funding coming from the Commonwealth causes deprivation. Pennsylvania contributes 38% while the national median for state funding is 47%. Accordingly, local wealth based on higher property taxes determines whether students get adequate teachers, counselors, nurses, librarians, reading specialists, STEM labs, art and music, and extra help for students who need it.  This inequality leads to an absence of opportunity resulting in lower graduation rates and fewer students earning degrees.

Last month, after an 8-year court battle, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court finally recognized that a two-tiered funding system of the haves and the have-nots was unacceptable for the children of our state.  In a lengthy opinion of almost 800 pages, the court held that the state's funding of public education falls woefully short and violates students' constitutional rights. If the opinion stands and is implemented, there will be billions of dollars in additional annual support to equalize public education in Pennsylvania.

Unfortunately, the opinion is long on platitudes and short on specifics. While it concludes, “It is now the obligation of the legislature, executive branch, and educators to make the constitutional promise a reality in this Commonwealth,” it does not outline how educational funding should be raised or distributed. My fear is that without appropriate pressure, action could be delayed for decades.

The solutions are not that complicated and New Jersey offers a detailed roadmap for Pennsylvania. Each year NJ prepares an “adequacy budget calculation” with a baseline of what it would cost to educate one student. This base per pupil amount considers many factors including salaries, supplies and inflation. After the budget is determined, the question becomes how much each school district will pay. Our neighboring state developed a formula that determines local share based on district property values and the income of each districts’ residents. Once the local share cost is computed, the state provides the difference in equalization aid. This system has provided quality public education for all of New Jersey’s students for many years.

My hope is that the solution for equality in Pennsylvania education does not include merging long-standing smaller school districts into larger ones. Washington School District is a unique institution that plays an important role in building a strong community. The students benefit from community support, and the school in turn fosters connections among neighbors and encourages civic participation. Moreover, the tradition of ‘Prexie Pride” in sports and among alumni would be lost forever.

Washington and other small school districts should be permitted to remain intact, but with the adequate funding all students deserve and our constitution demands.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 .

 

 

TREATING COVID BY THE NUMBERS

These days, being both fully vaccinated and contracting COVID-19 is a “viral topic” among our friends of similar age. While the virus no longer comes with the severe medical complications and death for our age group, people are becoming infected with the virus when they least expect it.  Now we are learning that no vaccine is 100% effective and that breakthrough infection of new COVID variants is to be expected.

Over the course of 2022, my wife and I resumed all of our normal activities and again began traveling overseas. In late October, we spent two weeks in Italy with two dozen strangers on a tour bus. We remained infection free after mingling with large crowds in Sorrento, Rome. Florence and Venice. At home, our masks hung unused from the car steering wheel, unless entering a nursing home or physician’s office.  

In early February, two days after returning from a trip to New York City, my phone began “blowing up” every morning. The message blurted out that we were exposed to the virus while in the city. The “COVID Alert NY” app works by using secure Bluetooth technology to detect when another phone with the same app is near. If the two apps sense that they have been in within six feet of each other for longer than 10 minutes – they will exchange random codes.

Little did we know that the phone warnings were prophetic of incoming COVID. Our year of dodging the bullet, following attendance at dozens of events with large numbers of unmasked people, was over.  My wife was the first to experience symptoms after returning home. On February 7, she went to an area dealership to pick up a vehicle we had purchased. She sat inside the car for 30 minutes with the salesperson going over all the bells and whistles. (Of course, this poor fellow came down with COVID.) She had a fever that evening and other tell-tale symptoms developed. Two home tests for the virus were negative.

Finally, our physician tested her in the parking lot of her office. On February 9, she was confirmed positive. Paxlovid, the oral anti-viral drug for COVID was administered. We learned that the home test kits, which are rapid Antigen tests that produce results in 15-30 minutes, are less reliable than laboratory based tests.  Negative antigen test results do not rule out infection and should be repeated if symptoms persist.  

By February 12, her symptoms were already resolving. Three days later, with the physician’s approval, my wife and a girlfriend, both masked the entire time, attended the Yo-Yo Ma concert at Heinz Hall.

My COVID experience that followed was both rapid and predictable.  When my spouse received her laboratory test, she learned that COVID-19 tests only detect the presence of the virus – they do not determine the variant.  What is known is that the variants now circulating are so contagious that even if we are diligent with masks, up to date on vaccines or have been infected before, many of us will continue to be susceptible to catching the virus. Thankfully, the vaccines are holding up well against serious disease, and we are not back in the dark days of 2020.

It was not until after my wife tested positive that we began to occupy separate living spaces. By then, the “COVID Rule of Fives” had guaranteed I would contract the virus despite our best efforts. These rules include: (1) If fully vaccinate, get tested 5 days after exposure, (2) If there are no  symptoms, continue to wear a mask for another 5 days, (3) Stay home for 5 days after symptoms appear and until fever free, (4) Wear a mask for an additional 5 days after no longer isolating.

Exactly 5 days after my wife learned she was infected, I tested positive with a home test. I had multiple symptoms but never contracted a fever. Because of another medication I was taking, Paxlovid was not prescribed. During the video conference with my physician, we were given the only good news of the week. We would both have excellent renewed immunity for our planned trip to Portugal on March 1.

Keeping up on the science of the virus fell off the radar when our lives were COVID-free. Since our infections, we have learned from findings published in The New England Journal of Medicine that protection against infection from the virus plateaued about four weeks after our fourth shot was administered.  Among those who did not get the second booster, the infection rate was about twice as high.

More encouraging was the second booster's lasting effectiveness against severe COVID-19. A month after getting the fourth shot, the rate of severe disease was 3.5 times lower in that group than in those who had only received three shots. The boosters have shown the ability to provide needed protection for people who are immunocompromised, including those with cancer, who are often given immunosuppressive treatments that weaken their innate immune defenses. 

COVID-19 is a resilient disease that can be controlled with yearly boosters. The greatest danger may now be contracting “long COVID.’’ Thankfully, modifiable lifestyle factors that help prevent other diseases also appear to fend off chronic post COVID conditions. These include, never smoking, moderate alcohol consumption, a high-quality diet, good sleep habits and moderate physical activity.  The pandemic is over but long-term COVID prevention still requires vigilance.