It’s About One Test — Because One Test Can Reveal the Problem Superintendent Leadership Doesn’t Want the Public to See

Editorial by Lazaro L. Castellon on the Algebra I and Biology proficiency gaps, district spending, school board oversight and superintendent accountability.

By Lazaro L. Castellon | The Mifflin Report EDITORIAL Editorial illustration supplied to The Mifflin Report; not an actual student report card or official district document. The banner states the gap in percentage points. Sometimes, one number tells a story that hundreds of pages of reports, presentations, explanations and meetings cannot hide. For Governor Mifflin Senior High School, that number is 28% . Only 28% of students were proficient on the Algebra I Keystone assessment cited in the current academic comparison. The statewide Keystone proficiency rate was approximately 44.3% . That is a 16.3-percentage-point gap . And that is why this is about one test. Not because one test tells us everything about a school. It doesn't. It matters because one test can reveal a problem that superintendent leadership doesn't want the public to see. When student performance remains substantially below the statewide benchmark, taxpayers have every right to ask a simple question: What is happening inside the school district that is producing these results? And that question cannot be answered by simply saying that one test is only one data point. Of course it is. But if leadership repeatedly tells the public not to focus on individual results, then what happens when those individual results begin forming a pattern? That is when the public has to look deeper. The Question Isn't Just the Score The real issue is what happened around the score. Governor Mifflin has spent years emphasizing new approaches to education, student-centered learning and innovative programs. Those initiatives may have legitimate educational goals. But programs and philosophies should ultimately be examined against outcomes. Are students mastering the fundamentals? Are they prepared for the next level? Are taxpayers getting measurable results for the money being spent? And when the numbers fall short, who is responsible for asking why? Those are legitimate questions for any superintendent and any school board. The Algebra I result makes those questions harder to dismiss. The Biology Keystone comparison raises another concern. Governor Mifflin's reported proficiency was approximately 38% , compared with a statewide Keystone rate of about 49.4% — an 11.4-point difference . Again, one test does not define an entire school. But two different subject areas showing substantial gaps should prompt serious examination. Leadership Since 2023 Means Accountability Now Dr. Lisa Hess has been leading the district since 2023. That means the district's academic performance, spending priorities, construction decisions, administrative structure, contracts and overall direction are now part of her leadership record. That does not mean every problem began with the current superintendent. It does mean the public is entitled to ask what has improved, what has not improved and why. And those questions become even more important when taxpayers are being asked to support increasing costs. More Money. More Construction. More Questions. Governor Mifflin taxpayers have watched major construction projects, change orders and expanding costs become a regular part of district business. They have also watched teacher contracts containing scheduled increases and other long-term financial commitments. None of those expenditures are automatically wrong. But the larger question is unavoidable: What are taxpayers receiving in return? If the district is going to spend tens of millions of dollars on buildings and projects while academic results remain a concern, the public has every right to demand a clear explanation of priorities. A new building cannot teach Algebra. A change order cannot raise a student's Keystone score. And another construction project cannot substitute for academic improvement. Who Is Really Running the School District? There is another issue that cannot be ignored: the relationship between the superintendent and the elected Board of School Directors. The superintendent is appointed. The school directors are elected by the public. That distinction matters. The Board is responsible for governance and oversight. Administration is responsible for carrying out the district's operations under Board policy. When administration appears to dominate the conversation, control information flow, or make decisions that residents believe should come before the elected Board, the public has a legitimate reason to ask whether the balance of authority is working as it should. That includes the use of district facilities and community spaces. Facility use should operate under Board-approved policy and whatever level of Board approval that policy requires — not according to the personal preference of any individual administrator. The nine elected directors need to act like the governing body the voters elected them to be. And Then There Is School Safety The academic numbers aren't happening in isolation. The district has also dealt with serious questions surrounding student safety and security. The August 2026 football-game incident led the district to announce updated stadium safety procedures. The district also reported a separate September 2026 incident involving juveniles and an airsoft gun and knives. Those incidents deserve facts, transparency and accountability — not political theater. Parents also came before the Board raising allegations that their daughters had experienced harassment for approximately seven months and questioning why the situation allegedly continued without adequate intervention. Those allegations deserve a proper examination of what school administrators knew, when they knew it, what actions were taken and whether district policies were followed. There are also questions that should be asked about personnel screening and Human Resources when concerns are raised about employees who may have previously worked elsewhere under similar circumstances. Those claims should be investigated and documented before anyone reaches a conclusion. But ignoring questions isn't accountability either. The U.S. News Number Matters The broader academic picture is why the U.S. News & World Report profile of Governor Mifflin Senior High School deserves attention. U.S. News & World Report — Governor Mifflin Senior High School, Shillington, PA The ranking is not the final word on the quality of a school. But rankings, assessment scores and proficiency rates are indicators. And when those indicators raise concerns, leadership should not be offended by the questions. Leadership should answer them. When the Evaluation Sounds Too Good, the Public Has the Right to Ask Why There is another piece of this story that cannot be overlooked: the superintendent's evaluation. The Governor Mifflin School Board's own evaluation of Dr. Lisa Hess has repeatedly presented her leadership in extremely positive terms. The 2024–2025 evaluation stated that the Board found she had demonstrated “exceptional leadership.” The previous year's evaluation described her leadership results as “superior.” That is certainly the Board's assessment. But here's the problem: Does the public see the same picture? When a superintendent receives glowing evaluations while taxpayers are looking at disappointing academic results, rising costs, construction spending, student-safety concerns and ongoing questions about district leadership, it is reasonable to ask whether the evaluation process is giving enough weight to the results parents and taxpayers actually experience. I am not saying Dr. Lisa Peterson or any individual Board member intentionally produced a biased evaluation. But when the praise is overwhelmingly positive, the public is entitled to examine the evidence behind that praise. What measurable results justified “exceptional leadership”? Where are the corresponding academic gains? What happened to students who are still performing below state benchmarks? How are financial decisions being measured? How is administration being held accountable when problems continue? And perhaps most importantly: Is the evaluation measuring leadership activity — or leadership results? Those are two very different things. A superintendent can hold meetings, create committees, introduce initiatives, present reports and communicate with the community. But at the end of the day, students still have to learn. Taxpayers still have to pay the bills. Parents still expect their children to be safe. And the elected Board still has to provide oversight. That is why the 28% Algebra I proficiency number matters. It gives the public something concrete to examine against the glowing descriptions of leadership. If the evaluation says the district is being led exceptionally well, but a significant number of students are struggling academically, the answer cannot simply be, “It's only one test.” The answer should be: Why are the results not matching the evaluation? That is the question the Board should be willing to answer publicly. Maybe the Problem Isn't Just One Test Maybe the problem isn't one test. Maybe the test is the warning light. And maybe the bigger question is whether Governor Mifflin has had the right leadership priorities for the last several years. Dr. Hess's own district biography says her leadership philosophy emphasizes student voice and choice, real-world application, community connections and innovation. Those ideas can be debated. But they should also be measured. If the district is going to pursue a particular educational philosophy, the community has a right to ask whether it is producing the academic outcomes students need. The results have to matter. Governor Mifflin Needs to Look at Leadership Differently At some point, the Board has to look beyond whether the superintendent is well liked, communicates effectively or receives positive evaluations. It has to ask whether the district is producing the results the community expects. And if the evidence shows that the current direction is falling short, then the Board needs to be willing to consider new leadership and a fresh direction . For me, that means asking whether Dr. Lisa Hess should continue as superintendent based on the record that is actually before the public — not simply on the glowing language contained in an evaluation. The issue isn't whether Dr. Hess has accomplishments. The issue is whether those accomplishments are translating into the results Governor Mifflin students, parents and taxpayers deserve. That is a question the nine elected school directors—not the administration—must ultimately confront. Because an evaluation can say “exceptional.” A presentation can say “successful.” A superintendent can say “we're making progress.” But 28% is still 28%. And that is exactly why one test can reveal a much bigger problem.