Monday, September 28, 2009

Extension of superintendent's contract beyond 2011 under consideration

From the PG, the current contract ends in 2011 but an extension beyond that time is being considered:

- The article mentions a desire for stability for the district, but there does not seem to be anything in place or planned that would prevent the superintendent from choosing to leave early, extension or not.


Questioner said...

The article mentions the idea of accountability when a superintendent has a long tenure. Another article in the PG, however, notes that if state graduation exams are approved, the 11th grade PSSA- which has been the most problematic- will be retired as of the 2012-13 school year.

Observer said...

As is usually the case with a Joe Smydo article, the "accomplishments" of Mr.Roosevelt are highlighted and the negatives are given short shrift.
In any case, this endeavor highlights all that is wrong with the Pittsburgh Public School Board. Roosevelt's contract is up in 2011. Teachers contracts are up at the end of the year. Board members are falling all over themselves to give Roosevelt raises. I wonder how they will react to teacher contracts.
I am betting they will claim that there is no money.
Priorities and politics. What a sad time to be a teacher.

Anonymous said...

It's incredible. Enrollment is down and most test scores haven't improved much. There is the Pittsburgh Promise but with a longer contract he'll keep his position whether he raises the yearly amount for the Promise or not.

Questioner said...

The PG editorial board thinks the contract should be extended due to:

1) The Pittsburgh Promise (which still has 7 years of funding to be raised)

2) The Gates grant (for a program with benefits yet to be shown since it has not yet begun)

3) Because the district made AYP for the first time in 7 years (without explaining that there is a new "growth model" way to make AYP that is available for the first time in 7 years and investigating whether under this model AYP would have been made in most or all of the past 7 years), and

4) Because the superintendent was on the CAPA stage with Michelle Obama during the G-20 summit.

The heading for the article is that "Roosevelt is worth locking in" to a new contract, but then it goes on to acknowledge that it wouldn't really lock him in.

Anonymous said...

I had never taken complaints about lack of the PG's objectivity that seriously, but for someone who wants to support a local paper it is now time to think about changing to the Tribune.

Kathy Fine said...

Just for the record, my full quote was something like,

"It seems incredible that the school board would continue to give raises and new contracts to a superintendent who has not met many of the goals set by his own administration in the "Excellence for All" presentation. However, I guess it would be good to have the sperintendent here to hold him accountable for his policies."

I got shorted by trying to remain somewhat balanced in my response.

Questioner said...

Not only were the goals not met, but in most cases the results were far short of the goals.

Goals averaged 20 percentage points while the actual gain (which for the most part is the same gain experienced across the state) was 9 percentage points in reading and 6 percentage points in math. The only explanation has been that ambitious goals were set. But if the targets aren't real, why have them? Why not say the goal is 100% proficiency and leave it at that?

Anonymous said...

A person who is truly confident about their value to an organization would not be so concerned about a contract extension.

In Pittsburgh we love to relate everything to the Steelers but the comparison to a coach's contract is not a good one. Half the NFL coaches in any given year must have a losing season and this statistic is a concern for any coach. That is not the case with a school superintendent.

Anonymous said...

Ms. Fine,
I understand your frustrations with your quote being taken out of context. I had a similar aggravating experience with the PG. A letter to the editor I had submitted was edited so much that not only was the point I intended to make not clear, but the meaning and intent of the letter was completely gone.
Just wanted to throw out some support. PURE is doing a great job!

Anonymous said...

A loophole to make AYP, a loophole to extend the contract, loopholes to prevent students from failing, loopholes in requirements for teachers to stay at ALA's... there seems to be a pattern here.

Anonymous said...

Here's the Tribune's editorial about this year's PSSA scores: