This is the blog section of the PURE Reform website. Please leave your thoughts and comments here.
PURE Reform has created this blog as a forum for parents, teachers and community members to share information and voice concerns regrading the reform process in the Pittsburgh Public Schools. Although we would like to foster constructive dialogue, PURE Reform does not edit content. The views expressed by bloggers in this forum are not necessarily views held by PURE Reform.
To comment on an existing topic, go to the line at the bottom of the post for that topic that begins "Posted by..." That line will list "1 comment," "2 comments," etc. Click on "comments," then leave your comment in the box provided. To post as Anonymous, no registration is required, OR you can choose an identity.
To suggest a new topic, go to this month's post labeled "Start a New Post" and add your comment (as described above) about the new suggested topic. PURE Reform will use these comments to start new posts.
This article and many others includes the statement:
"In August, the district for the first time met academic progress standards, known as adequate yearly progress, under the No Child Left Behind Act."
For some reason the reporters do not feel it is relevant to also note that for the first time new more lenient standards were put into place for AYP.
Also the article notes that Roosevelt disagrees with calculations on whether progress has been made on closing the state/PPS gap but does not explain the disagreement. It probably involves hair splitting, so to clarify- at some grade level and on some test there might have been a small amount of progress made but overall, considering all grade levels and subjects we do not see substantial progress. See http://www.purereform.com/statePPScomparison.html
Actually Anon that really is not a bad idea! People would probably have much more confidence in the "vision" mentioned in the article if some time was spent in the trenches.
I just wanted to note that I emailed to the superintendent this morning asking for information on any error with our calculations so that we could correct them if necessary. I have not received a response yet.
One of the problems I have with central administration anymore is that the continual commentary about changing times often means research. To me, that's a loser's take. You see, students have become nameless, faceless statistics only, and for this very reason, the policies, rationales, approaches and logistics that come down from people like the curriculum chief leave me cold. Education is a people business, and let's face it, statistics only tell part of the story. For his part, MR is a corporate guy, a man who relies on research. Since his appointment, he's done what any corporate type would do. As such, funding seems to do quite well while academic achievement strategies based on numbers seems to spin, relying as always upon teachers to push the kids. Shame. A true chief academic officer who really knew Pittsburgh children and spent time in the schools would round out the administrative staff nicely. We don't have such an individual right now.
5 comments:
This article and many others includes the statement:
"In August, the district for the first time met academic progress standards, known as adequate yearly progress, under the No Child Left Behind Act."
For some reason the reporters do not feel it is relevant to also note that for the first time new more lenient standards were put into place for AYP.
Also the article notes that Roosevelt disagrees with calculations on whether progress has been made on closing the state/PPS gap but does not explain the disagreement. It probably involves hair splitting, so to clarify- at some grade level and on some test there might have been a small amount of progress made but overall, considering all grade levels and subjects we do not see substantial progress. See http://www.purereform.com/statePPScomparison.html
Instead of teaching at CMU why doesn't Roosevelt "try" to teach a class at Westinghouse and earn his salary. He wouldn't last a class period.
Actually Anon that really is not a bad idea! People would probably have much more confidence in the "vision" mentioned in the article if some time was spent in the trenches.
I just wanted to note that I emailed to the superintendent this morning asking for information on any error with our calculations so that we could correct them if necessary. I have not received a response yet.
One of the problems I have with central administration anymore is that the continual commentary about changing times often means research. To me, that's a loser's take. You see, students have become nameless, faceless statistics only, and for this very reason, the policies, rationales, approaches and logistics that come down from people like the curriculum chief leave me cold.
Education is a people business, and let's face it, statistics only tell part of the story.
For his part, MR is a corporate guy, a man who relies on research. Since his appointment, he's done what any corporate type would do. As such, funding seems to do quite well while academic achievement strategies based on numbers seems to spin, relying as always upon teachers to push the kids.
Shame. A true chief academic officer who really knew Pittsburgh children and spent time in the schools would round out the administrative staff nicely. We don't have such an individual right now.
Post a Comment