Article about Milliones in the New Pittsburgh Courier:
http://www.newpittsburghcourieronline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=932:former-milliones-school-offers-u-prep&catid=38:metro&Itemid=27
A few interesting points. The article notes that the school offers all middle school sports and next year will offer all high school sports. It also answers the question of how they are managing all these teams in a single school: two gymnasiums, like Brashear. The article notes that the school is designed to have "no more than 600 total students" (although with current attrition rates it will have much fewer).
In comparison the IB school has one gym for a planned 1000+ students- raising the question of whether another gym is planned but the cost not included in facilities estimates, or if the intention is to maintain this disparity in facilities.
And raising the further question of why the the need for multiple gyms was not discussed when the 6-12 configuration was first proposed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Also interesting is this quote by the superintendent: "If you look at high schools around the country, the ones that are succeeding are the small ones."
It would be good to have some evidence to examine in support of this statment, given recent reports that the Gates Foundation was disappointed in the results if its small schools initiative and has turned its attention to other efforts (such as the teacher effectiveness program being launched in Pittsburgh).
Sadly, the Reizenstein facility is inadequate for supporting games and practices this year. At the most recent EFA meeting we heard how boys and girls were scheduled to use the gym at the same time and one team would end up at, I believe, Letsche as the solution. The transportation issue must be really interesting.
In fairness, the current administration is in some instances a victim of the past mistakes of previous administrations when it comes to facility planning. There seems to have been little concern for population projections when money was being spent on facilities in the past. I have never quite understood for instance why there always seems to be a dustup when the board discusses certain schools. Demountables should never be a long term solution to overcrowding.
And Letsche itself is inadequate- a parent contacted PURE last year to complain about conditions there, and the facility consulted recommended closing it.
More on small schools: on the very same page (A4 in the Courier) where the superintendent is quoted as saying the schools that are succeeding are the small ones, he is also quoted (in the context of the need to make close or make changes to underenrolled, predominantly African American schools) that "students are better served in larger schools because more resources can be made available to them.... The truth is that size does matter."
http://www.newpittsburghcourieronline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=936:naacp-protests-goal-to-close-achievement-gap&catid=38:metro&Itemid=27
600 total students in 6-12? That's less than 100 students per year. How could you possibly have "all sports" with those numbers. Every single kid would have to play a sport every season!
Or does that count on them combining with Sci-Tech for sports?
Ha, great catch on the small schools, I mean big schools, I mean, whatever I say is better dueling quotes.
I'd have to agree with the secnd one that in general and up to a certain size, bigger is better, in that you'll have more people there all the time -- the speech therapy, reading specialist, etc. services can be arranged around the kids and school's needs, rather around the needs of two or three schools.
Smaller schools tend to be more specialized in part due to the fact that you can't afford to offer a broader range. However, I don't think that kids should be made to choose and specialize early. Bigger schools give both options -- by offering more programs, students that don't have an overriding passion can sample and experience many different things and those that want to oncentrate in one area don't have to go to a school that *only* has that area and few other options.
It seems like the article misstates the number- it's the 9-12 portion that is SUPPOSED to be 600 (but w/ 210 in 9 and 10 that the 600 figure is probably "aspirational"). So if there were 75 in grade 6, grade 7 and grade 8 the target number would be 825. But 600 in 6-12 is probably the more realistic number unless they start changing feeder patterns.
They probably shouldn't count sci tech b/c the school's website referred to Milliones as available for students "who really wanted" to play a sport- implying there would not be large numbers in sports at Milliones. But in any event even counting sci tech and with full enrollment at both schools that would be 3 gyms for 1375 students- while the 1050 (target number) for IB shared one gym.
If a second gym is added to Peabody or Reizenstein, probably the cost will not be factored in until the location is decided on. Then the gym can be added "in response to concerns of parents and students"- similar to the way some of the renovations happened after CAPA changed to 6-12.
The number of gyms is not even a good metric. The gym at Reizenstein holds 2 practice volleyball courts, for instance. Other gyms can hold 4. So, a small gym is not the same as a large gym. Reizenstein's gym is sorta small vs. Peabody's gym -- and others.
And, to put fuel on the fire of sorts, we are really jammed in the swim pool too with middle school, high school, and even P.E. classes.
Isn't this the kind of thing a facilities consultant should have addressed? In recommending a school with a single small gym, ideally a consultant with extensive nationwide experience would have told us whether and how this worked elsewhere. We got broad recommendations and were left to work out the details, but sometimes "the devil is in the details."
Can 180 middle school students (plus a few sci tech students) support "all middle school sports"?
Larger schools offering a chance to sample and experience is a good concept, but not very simple to implement. Lots of programs are sequential and it is only possible to try a new one in the 6th or 9th grade for example, and even then only if you have the prior prep. I am thinking of world languages especially. If you had Spanish in 6th grade, could you go to German in 7th and French in 8th? If you were in pre-engineering in 6th , could you go to entrepreneurship in 7th? Seems like a nightmare to schedule and staff all of these options.
These days in academics (and sports as well) it seems that kids MUST specialize early and focus on one or two areas so that they can reach great enough heights early enough to apply for competitive summer programs, camps, colleges etc. Sad but true.
Actually you probably could switch world language once, maybe twice... in 9th grade at the IB program, kids who have been studying French or Spanish since as as early as first grade start their high school career with the high school spanish 2 book. That level also seems to work for kids coming out of private schools who studied the language during middle school only. There don't seem that many programs that need to be started in 6th grade as opposed to 7th and 8th grade. At the science school for ex 6th graders who are dropping out b/c they decide science isn't for them will surely be replaced by some new 7th grade students.
One student took the intro course of a different language at Schenley each year- japanese, french, german, spanish- to learn the basics of each language. It worked for him! (But would not be possible at the IB school.)
The idea that most kids need to specialize early to beat some imagined competition is in a word, wrong.
I definitely see more of a problem in that kids who are struggling end up doing more and more and more of the thing they can't do well until it crowds out all the things they might might good at and enjoy about school. You end up with angry, resistant, non-learners. I'm not saying don't teach them the things they don't "like" -- but I am saying that there needs to be an available array of choices that interest them if you expect them to buy in at all.
Yeah, I agree with anon at 5:05. That's always been the rub about education. Why does the kid who has performed miserably in math since 6th grade have to keep taking the course. The same goes for science.
The answer is because colleges largely call the shots where their requirements are concerned. These are the same people who'll tell you that SAT scores don't mean as much as they used to, and then shoot down PPS kids whose grades are good but whose SAT scores just aren't at that grand level (I'm thinking of a particular Oakland school here).
Somebody is going to overhaul education one day to encompass a more realistic, logical approach to academics.
Questioner, let me get back to your original point. First off, all you need to do in any publicly-funded endeavor that makes you feel a little queasy is to follow the money. It's always about the money. PPS is more about money than it is the supposed task at hand, educating children. There's a reason that a superintendent and union chief are locking arms and making kissy faces all over town these days. Never mind that students and teachers have been sold down the river. Keep an eye on the money and the power that comes from it.
It amazes me that leadership in both regards call Gates money a "big win" for the district. Do some reading. Any teacher who looks at this as a "big win" either is whistling past the graveyard or has friends in high places. This is a recipe for disaster where careers are concerned, and akin to allowing laymen to not only dictate policy in local hospitals but also, to come in, grab a stethoscope and start seeing patients. No matter what kind of teacher you are or how truly effective you are, this situation should give you great pause, as if seeing the union chief and superintendent on the dance floor together weren't enough.
To me at least, this was the last piece of the corporate pie. Older administrators have been weeded out of the district--these are the ones who knew Pittsburgh schools, Pittsburgh kids, and what was best for their schools....the ones who objected. Teacher input has been eliminated where curriculum is concerned. Let's have university staffers oversee it. Never mind that they aren't in our schools. Let's close a number of good schools in neighborhoods under the guise of saving tax dollars but in reality, creating a have and have not environment.
Hard to believe.
To add to the last annon thought One last nail in the coffin is the Gates grant from what I understand teachers do not need to have a degree. I believe their theory is that they will train them. For example special ed teachers do not need a special ed degree. Which is scary to me. What do others think?
The superintendent did not need certification; principals do not need extensive experience in schools; the director of the teacher improvement program has little teaching experience; so not requiring teachers to have a degree in the subject they teach fits right in.
Lots of people complaining (and not just on this blog); not that many people doing anything about it.
How about a little more help with PURE's efforts?
Questioner, I salute Pure Reform's efforts. That said, you will forgive me for saying that given the real effort behind "teacher effectiveness"...a way to sidestep state law and have non-certified individuals in front of students...any teacher who puts their name out there does so at great peril.
We understand. People who can't put their names out can help though by getting as much information to us as possible- good, bad, whatever is relevant so we can get a complete picture.
There is a difficult balance to be struck because if no one says anything the assumption is that everything is OK. For example at one building shared by 6-12 this configuration is reportedly causing real problems- on recent days the girls swim team and a middle school team needing the gym were sent off to other buildings due to lack of space. Especially given that the 6-12 schools are supposed to be rigorous programs with significant study and homework required, how does it serve kids to be running between buildings, not being able to keep their stuff in a single locker (and to go back to their regular lockers after practice, etc), and teams not being able to keep gear in a single location? When the idea of 6-12's were raised this type of concern was brushed away with assurances that it would be worked out. Well, everyone will make do, but how is this an improvement? A long term solution is still needed but we are boxed in by other decisions and investments that have been made. At the same time, no one- not parents, not newspapers- wants to beat down schools by reporting problems publicly. This may be why, getting back to the original article about Milliones that started this thread, there was no mention of the startlingly high attrition rate students who started 9th grade there last year (37% of the original 9th graders did not return for 10th grade). How can we talk about the benefits of continuity from 6-12 when there is such a problem with continuity between 9th and 10th grades? It would have been better just to do 9-12 well.
The argument that Allderdice and Westinghouse used to be 7-12 was originally persuasive to me. But then, there was no Title IX and not very many girls teams.
Location and name mean a great deal. Has anyone done exit interviews with the kids who did not return to Uprep for 10th grade? I am sorry to say that as respected as Mrs Milliones was in the Pittsburgh community I can't get past the image of my kid having to be escorted to her yellow school bus by several security guards after a girls' basketball game not all that many years ago. As illogical as it may seem now to discount the location as a destination for another of my kids, I just can't bring myself to do it.
I do also think that the only place discipline has improved in the district is on paper. My guess is less is reportable because fewer of those responsible have the time to do the reporting. I have no first hand experience but in listening to kids I come in contact with from at least two areas of the city this seems pretty clear. It is less often that your hear "safe and welcoming."
That's strange, because adding CEP was supposed to take care of those with discipline problems so that others in the school would be able to learn.
Just wanted to add some info to the discussions about gym time and scheduling at the New IB/Schenely at Reizenstein. Last December coaches at the reizenstein facility questioned how 2 middle school and 2 high school sports teams would manage in the reizenstein gym. The district responded by stating that there would be no conflicts because of the separate start and dismissal times of the middle and high schools. It was pointed out to the district at that time that this reasoning was illogical and that the start and dismissal times would in no way alleviate the scheduling problems. The district then stated that they would hold meetings in the spring of 2009 with the athletic director and coaches to try to address the problem.
About one week later at the monthly EFA meeting, I brought up the issue of the scheduling problems at Reizenstein and the district rep restated the staggered dismissal rational as to why there would not be a scheduling problem, even though that rational was debunked a week earlier.
I am not sure if the meeting was ever held between the district and the AD/coaches at Reizenstein, but all of the problems that were predicted have come to fruition; boys bball team practicing as late as 7:30PM and the girls team practicing at Ellis. This situation is ridiculous and the result of poor planning starting with the premature and ill-advised closing of Schenley HS.
Does this surprise you, Kathy. Here we have a master of allowing the squeaky wheel to squeak itself out, knowing that given time, the issue will go away. It's evident in everything and with all parties. Schenley. 50%. The list is endless.
Unfortunately it does not surprise me. But this is one wheel that's gonna keep squeaking. Everyone that reads this blog that has been discontented with the current reform process should be coming to the special public hearing on 12/21 at 7PM at the board of ed (everyone whose job is not at risk, that is). The hearing is to start the clock on the public input into school closings. The more of us squeaking, we might just get the grease.
Post a Comment