From the PG, the District has formed a panel to discuss secondary schools in the East End.
http://www.blogger.com/publish-confirmation.g?blogID=49258804305307213&postID=7642411830706491274×tamp=1259666608830&javascriptEnabled=true
Once again the district has not released a list of members of the panel, and meetings are closed to the public. And, formation of the panel was not announced in advance. There seems to be a real fear of broad public awareness of these committees and how they operate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
People who would be expected to be on such a panel- such as a recently retired school board director from this part of town, or a representative from the NAACP- have not been invited to serve on the panel.
We know there is already a plan to make some classes in Westinghouse single gender. This will be presented as if it is something the panel came up with.
Maybe single gender is a good idea, maybe not (see Links on the PURE Reform website for an article suggesting some benefits to black males), but one thing is for sure- it will be called an academy! Way too much is expected in this district from particular names and configurations.
Does anyone know if the group of individuals who had planned to march around the board building (every Monday for six weeks from the date of the November public hearing) are actually marching? PURE provides such an open forum I just wish those citing issues had a place to be specific with the evidence.
Yes the group led by the NAACP was marching yesterday between 5 and 5:30, and we have requested a copy of their statements from the public hearing.
I should have continued by saying that PURE's site would be a good outlet. I think it might also be good for anyone on any committee to review the report on the Conciliation Agreement and any information on the Equity Panel and its work. A good start to avoiding any overlap of effort. Both topics are covered on the district website.
Anon1, if you have a chance can you add the links to the specific location on the district website for the conciliation agreement and equity panel? Thanks!
Using "anon1" is a good idea. Maybe each "anonymous" on a particular thread can use anonymous or anon plus a number, just for that particular thread, so we can tell the different anonymouses apart.
I still can't find my invite....
I did blog about this too.
http://rauterkus.blogspot.com/2009/12/panel-to-analyze-secondary-schools-in.html
http://www.pps.k12.pa.us/143110111414150433/site/default.asp
I see the site has gotten jazzed up too, looks cool.
It looks like no one from the equity panel or advocates for AA students was invited either.
No one connected to IB on the committee either. The focus seems to be on merging Peabody and Westinghouse.
Is there a list of committee members? I would not say NEVER to anything. Perhaps there are powerful people out there able to do what many say is an impossible task, merging the populations of both buildings.
The question to be debated is- is merging these schools really the best thing?
As for a list- we asked for one and were told we could send a request to the district's solicitor (which would typically result in the list about 6 weeks later, after meetings are almost over). So we have to rely on people telling us who is on the committee. It does not seem to include anyone who has ever spoken out against district plans.
Only a casual observer so I may not know what I am talking about, but decisions of this magnitude better be arrived at unanimously because the results affect a large part of the city. After the PG article today noting that Mr. Taylor will convene his own meeting I think both committees should be reconsidered.
The biggest gripe I have? NO TEACHERS OR STUDENTS ON THE COMMITTEE(S)? Until the administrative offices are in buildings of great need or administrators double as sunstitute teachers and face down an unruly student any committee hasn't got a chance of making the RIGHT decision.
I can almost see keeping the membership of the district committee private. I would have more faith in its findings and suggestions if members willing identified themselves and offered to hear what non-members had to say.
Anon2, what would be the benefit of not disclosing the names of panel members (at least for the 5 or 6 weeks it would take to get names if the media had to rely on a right to know request)?
If membership is not representative the problem cannot be corrected if names are withheld.
Keeping the members names private would allow for objectivity and would be good IF MEMBERS were well acquainted with the issues that exist. Eventually the names should be public, but even so I have followed committees actions and found at least in one case a parent representative that nobody knows outside his own building.
Two committees? Merge them now before they start working against one another.
A lot of it comes down to trust. Will folks who haven't been burned be skeptical enough to ask the right questions?
Post a Comment