Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Facilities Study commentary
PURE Reform's commentary on the PPS Facilities Study has now been posted as a Featured Topic on the www.purereform.com website (in draft form so as to make comments availabe before tomorrow's "community dialogue" ). Go to the Featured Topic tab of www.purereform.com and select Facilities Study Commentary.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Meetings that leave the impression that huge drops are predicted in Pittsburgh's population when that is not actually the case may discourage people from starting businesses or remaining in the city.
My $.02 at my blog now:
http://rauterkus.blogspot.com/2009/05/pure-reform-parents-united-for.html
Here is the truth.
People will VOTE WITH THEIR FEET.
A school that has success will have a waiting list. A school where there is FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) and folly in the building will shrink.
Same too with a city.
I see the numbers. I feel that the numbers will continue to slid downward. The turn-around won't be next year as I don't have faith in what changes have been happening -- and the overall performance of the city (schools and local gov) is still frail (to say the least).
Should great schools emerge and if they have both support and stability, over the years, they will flourish and so to will the city.
The assumption does seem to be that people will vote with their feet. A school age population of over 40,000 is projected for 2014, but non-charter enrollment is projected to be only 25,000. The difference between school age population and enrollment:
dropouts, private schools, charter schools.
Since charter schools are public schools, maybe we should be planning where the charter schools that will educate many of these children will go.
Study all the facilities plans you want to. I just watched the raw footage from the Oliver incident and we can comment til the cows come home and listen to the same old blame game on talk radio or the TV talk shows. We have got to get over the "it's the parents" message and forget the idea of "just kick them out." The reality is FAPE. Free appropriate public education. Now the discussion has to be about the definition of appropriate. I can only guess what paperwork and evidence is needed to get a student into CEP, and even then doesn't the parent(s) have to agree? I can't say I would call it a successful program, and it will be at least another year before I have an unwavering opinion. Perhaps the discussion should be about appropriate punishments because what we are doing now isn't working. I know of parents who have gone the route to district judges and even that is not immediate enough to prevent further incidents. So often, and in the last two newsworthy incidents, we hear "it" started in the community. When the "it" might be "she looked at me funny" we have a societal issue bigger than any school system.
We need more school police. We need to look at all the programs in our buildings that are employed to prevent such incidents and decide which are working and which are available just to say something is being done or that programs are in place. Revisit any budget decisions now.
Ignoring neighborhood issues in planning new feeder patterns will only make incidents like this more frequent...
And we hear that "it" started outside of school...from the school officials. I'm guessing that more and more schools are going to be exempted from worrying about their suspensions rates.
Of course, actually working with these kids, using in-school suspension staffed with competent people, providing services...those things cost money. They won't be done.
How about we stop testing our kindergarteners and forcing seatwork down their throats all day long and actually go back to some playing? Learning how to get along in a group setting doesn't just happen, especially if the rules are different from those at home. If I get the time, I'll dig up the studies that show better ACADEMIC results from less specifically academic focus in kindergarten.
Also, how about a conflict resolution curriculum from kindergarten on up?
Conflict resolution would be great, but it would take away time from practicing for testing!
The draft commentary has been updated with changes including this new paragraph:
One alternative would be smaller comprehensive high schools combined with a theme/magnet in each school, providing sports, activities, and MORE choices to all students. Although the configuration and location of newly formed themed schools is being treated as a "given," these arrangements could be revisited and for example the IB school could be a themed school within or sharing a building with a comprehensive school. Alternatively if the Board was unwilling to rethink in light of the deJong findings the four approved thematic schools, the four thematics complete with existing locations and configurations could be "given" but any thematic schools beyond that could be located in the same buildings as comprehensive schools.
From the comments at my table and overheard from tables around me, most people don't like the 6-12 idea at all. But the new schools were set up before they were asked about 6-12.
That was my experience regarding 6-12 as well. That may well be the piece that justifies the lower projected enrollments!
Two other parents at my table also disliked K-8 schools, for the same reasons as the 6-12 -- that is, that the range of needs, behaviors, interests, etc. is too large for one staff/one building, regardless of scheduling.
I know parents with kids in their
30s who say they "lost" their child in middle school. When you look at the drops in enrollement in the future you will be able to point out the less than attractive option of 6-12. In my community you used to see a lot of kids graduating from achieving middle schools like South Brook and South Hills (at one time) opting for Seton. Now, what will happen? Kids migrating to private/ parochial schools out of 5th grade?
It seems like the thought was, that the achevement scores in middle schools were "terrible" and so the response was to eliminate the offending schools either by merging them with 1-5 or by merging them with high schools. But middle school is just a difficult age and a difficult age to teach well no matter where you put them.
Mr. Roosevelt read somewhere that the problem is transitions so he is trying to cut down on transitions by either having a transition at 6th grade for the 6-12 schools or at 9th grade with the K-8 schools. Many of us welcome transitions as an opportunity for growth but we were not consulted.
That is very true.
PURE Reform asked for and is still reviewing information from the district supporting the 6-12 format, but at first glance most of it seemed to consist of information showing that schools in NYC and elsewhere were trying 6-12 schools and that exam schools like Boston Latin had always been 6-12 or 7-12.
Qustioner, I mislaid my glasses, so forgive any typoes. Your post at 7:32 made me think that the district has been playing a shell game with the closting/reconfiguration on schools. It is like getting a do-over for a while when the school's/students' performance is not counted against you for AYP. Is this the case with the sci-tech school? Will the performance of the students, no matter where they came from before 6th grade count when they are a "NEW SCHOOL"? Will PVAAS prevent this shell game?
New schools will get a fresh start, but of course overall district scores for a particular grade will take into account all students in that grade no matter where they land... The main impetus seems to be a belief that configuration makes a big difference in achievement, a belief that doesn't seem to be backed up by hard data. PVAAS probably won't help much; it seems as if schools get the "green arrow" if they make a year's progress, even if it's from one year at a "basic" level to the next year at a "basic" level.
World leaders to hold economic summit in Pittsbugh in September; Pittsburgh's economic recovery is cited:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09148/973412-82.stm
Maybe we're not such a shriveling dying city after all!
Post a Comment