Should Boston Public Schools be put under state receivership?

Boston Public Schools has long been facing issues with transportation, academic performance, central office turnover and properly serving the most vulnerable students, according to a recent report from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. But is state receivership the solution?

Boston City Councilor and Education Committee Chair Julia Mejia and Jim Stergios, executive director of the Pioneer Institute, debated both sides with Sue O'Connell on Greater Boston.

Mejia, who is against receivership, said, "Bringing in a state receivership or any other model that kicks us to the side is not going to get us to where we need to be. We do not need to swap out the players to fix the problem, what we need to do is take responsibility that we created the mess that we find ourselves in."

Mejia added, "You have to turn to the people who are living the reality and doing the work to find those solutions. We don't need consultants, we don't need think tanks coming in and telling us what to do."

But Stergios said the problems within BPS are getting worse and worse. Instead of a full, sweeping state takeover, Stergios said local decision makers need to "get over themselves" and create a time-limited receiver that could be appointed by the superintendent, the school committee, the commissioner and the mayor.

"Every mayor has come in with their plan and their people, and it's just gotten worse over at least over the last 15 years because of a lack of stability," Stergios said.

Stergios added, "The kids, 60 to 70% of them are not being taught what they're going to be tested on because the central office is so chaotic. It can't even get the basic stuff done. That's cruel to kids."

Watch: Is receivership the solution to Boston Public Schools’ problems?