On the August "Start a new post" Annette Werner wrote:
Here is my testimony from today's public hearing.
A school bus was provided to transport folks from Homewood to support the plan (note that buses have never been provided for opponents of administration proposals). Even so only a small handful attended. Two school board members were absent as was the deputy superintendent.
My testimony, which I will look forward to revisiting in several years as we see how things pan out:
PPS Public Hearing
August 23, 2010
Annette Werner PURE Reform
Good evening.
I'm going to talk about the school reconfiguration plan. My overall impression of this plan is that it would not last in the long run because it forces arrangements that are not a good fit.
- 6-12 format- The community dialogues proved 6-12 to be an extremely unpopular grouping. It may be accepted at a school like CAPA with few sports and a select group of students who want to be there no matter what (although CAPA high school students have told me they would much prefer a performing arts high school). Elsewhere the 6-12 format imposes a burden on participation in sports and activities that would never be imposed on Allderdice or schools in the North and South regions and which will have to be fixed by a reconfiguration at a future date.
- Peabody area students to the Hill and Homewood- At risk students need a convenient, easily accessible school. Ongoing incidents in Homewood make the plan to send Peabody students to Westinghouse even more challenging and stressful for these students and their families. Eventually the Peabody community will take back the Peabody building.
- Mandatory CTE- Requiring students to participate in a career program, and a very limited one at that, solely because they live in a particular part of the city will not lead to a strong CTE program, particularly as students move in and out of the feeder pattern.
- Peabody building for IB- The combination of a non-central location, windowless spaces and limited outdoor athletic facilities will not help to attract students who have other options.
- Lack of regard for diversity- When this whole process began the high schools with limited diversity- Peabody, Oliver and Westinghouse- were the most problematic. The district then went ahead and added another school with limited diversity which has not been able to attract and retain students. Feeder patterns may be ever expanded but the more committed and involved parents will continue to seek diverse options for their children, leaving less diverse schools underenrolled and underperforming.
- Failure to align schedules of proposed year round schools with the schedules of younger family members.
Over the past two years I have spoken with all of you on the Board and observed most of your meetings, and I have found that each of you has common sense. Today I urge you to please, use that common sense to vote down this very untenable, ill-advised proposal. I know there are a better alternatives.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Disagree with your comments about IB at Peabody and athletic facilities, Annette. I also would disagree about the central location commentary. While I agree with PURE Reform's view that Schenley's closure was needless, it simply is not going to come back. The building is in a new "hot spot" area, accessible by myriad bus routes, etc., and the building is new in terms of renovation.
Additionally, I agree that 6-12 set up is not popular among kids at any school.
Reizenstein is in a new hot spot area; Peabody is stretching it. But let's touch base a few years from now.
Below is my testimony from yesterdays public hearing. Interestingly, a parent from Homewood who is a member of Operation Better Block and a member of the District's East End Reconfiguration committee, gave testimony directly countering mine, stating that the community process was excellent and inclusive. It would be interesting to find out how much he actually participated in the process since we were told by other committee members that only one parent came to a few meetings. I know he was't present at the meeting at Reizenstein.
I don't begrudge him or any of the other Homewood residents for coming out to support the realignment plan. Community members are desperate and see it as either theses changes or closure of their neighborhood school. I just wonder how many would be supporting a plan that divided their children between the Hill and East Liberty...
Testimony:
Good evening. Thank you for this opportunity to speak regarding the proposed reconfiguration of East End schools. My first comments speak to the community process for public input into this plan. Although the administration touts the involvement of the community in the planning process for reconfiguring our schools, each meeting was carefully scripted to guide participants to the recommendations of the district. The one meeting held at WHS that provided a forum for community feedback was designed in such a way that the only voice that was heard was that of the Assistant Superintendent, Derrick Lopez. Questions were required to be submitted in writing, read to Mr. Lopez who answered each question. There was no opportunity to follow up with further questions or to challenge answers that were insufficient (summary to be emailed). For example, when asked to give an example of a public school (non charter/private) with a successful single gender format, Mr. Lopez cited charter and magnet schools, all with competitive enrollment and minimum grade requirements.
Another example involved the question of accommodating sports programs for multiple teams in one gym in a 6-12 school. Mr. Lopez stated that the problems that arose at Reizenstein regarding scheduling practices were the result of poor communication between principals, when in reality, stakeholders, including myself, raised the question of scheduling at the December EFA meeting before the move to Reizenstein. At that time a meeting was promised involving all coaches and athletic directors to work out a viable solution. That meeting never occurred. Sadly, most in the general public (and many on this board) believe that there is a genuine community process going on when that is not the case (see attached summary of community meetings).
Below is my testimony from yesterdays public hearing. Interestingly, a parent from Homewood who is a member of Operation Better Block and a member of the District's East End Reconfiguration committee, gave testimony directly countering mine, stating that the community process was excellent and inclusive. It would be interesting to find out how much he actually participated in the process since we were told by other committee members that only one parent came to a few meetings. I know he was't present at the meeting at Reizenstein.
(see next post for remainder)
I don't begrudge him or any of the other Homewood residents for coming out to support the realignment plan. Community members are desperate and see it as either theses changes or closure of their neighborhood school. I just wonder how many would be supporting a plan that divided their children between the Hill and East Liberty...
Testimony:
Good evening. Thank you for this opportunity to speak regarding the proposed reconfiguration of East End schools. My first comments speak to the community process for public input into this plan. Although the administration touts the involvement of the community in the planning process for reconfiguring our schools, each meeting was carefully scripted to guide participants to the recommendations of the district. The one meeting held at WHS that provided a forum for community feedback was designed in such a way that the only voice that was heard was that of the Assistant Superintendent, Derrick Lopez. Questions were required to be submitted in writing, read to Mr. Lopez who answered each question. There was no opportunity to follow up with further questions or to challenge answers that were insufficient (summary to be emailed). For example, when asked to give an example of a public school (non charter/private) with a successful single gender format, Mr. Lopez cited charter and magnet schools, all with competitive enrollment and minimum grade requirements.
Another example involved the question of accommodating sports programs for multiple teams in one gym in a 6-12 school. Mr. Lopez stated that the problems that arose at Reizenstein regarding scheduling practices were the result of poor communication between principals, when in reality, stakeholders, including myself, raised the question of scheduling at the December EFA meeting before the move to Reizenstein. At that time a meeting was promised involving all coaches and athletic directors to work out a viable solution. That meeting never occurred. Sadly, most in the general public (and many on this board) believe that there is a genuine community process going on when that is not the case (see attached summary of community meetings).
I understand that the administration is doing what it thinks is best for our schools. But a paternalistic approach does nothing to foster the community buy-in that is essential to large-scale change. Yes, true community engagement is messy, but the sterilized format for community engagement demonstrated by this administration does not serve the students, parents or teachers of this city.
Regarding the reconfiguration plan, there remain far too many unresolved details and the plan itself does not seem to be the best hope to revitalize our impoverished schools. Renaming schools “academies” and throwing uniforms and unproven programming like single gender at the schools may play well in the media, but these reforms do not address the heart of the problem, children living in poverty without strong educational advocates in the home. Yes, the Lighthouse Project at WHS is a phenomenal program, but only 15 students participate on any given day. We need a wholesale revamping of the social services, mentoring, and paraprofessional programs. While we spend millions on consultants and programs predicted to fail like CEP, schools are forced to lay off paraprofessionals and social workers.
It is very easy to paint dissenters with a broad brush, claiming that any protest reflects a desire for the “status quo”. We all understand that radical changes are needed in our schools. But those changes need to come from the root level, planted firmly and nurtured to grow into an outstanding public school system for all.
Annette, the point is that East Liberty is the hot spot area for the time being. It really doesn't matter if you're on the north end or the south end.
The 6-12 issue is yet another example of someone in Roosevelt's administration doing research and foisting what has been found onto our district in an effort to appear progressive or "cutting edge". I'm no fan of 6-12 and I think that kids generally lose the feeling of "high school experience".
It may be that the "one parent" was "just a parent," while this speaker was viewed as a participant from an organization.
Which brings to mind another question- how many participants from organizations in the district's various committees have contracts with or hope to have contracts with Pittsburgh Public Schools.
Can we really say that the general public finds all parts of East Liberty equally convenient and attractive, and that new businesses are just as content to set up in one part of East Liberty as any other part of East Liberty?
Two representatives from the NAACP and a Homewood resident also testified about deficiencies in the process and particularly with the recent meeting at Westinghouse, noting that the only voice heard at that meeting was Derrick Lopez's and that questions were evaded. The moderator announced at that meeting that complete questions and answers from the meeting would be posted online (including follow up questions submitted but not read). However, as of yesterday that had not been done.
Come on Annette. East Liberty is largely Penn Circle and immediately off of the circle, like Home Depot. If you're standing at Peabody, you can hit Penn Circle with a rock.
Yeah, I understand all about Reizenstein being adjacent to Bakery Square--which is kind of an off shoot to the East Liberty development more than anything else.
Personally, I think the Reizenstein building is fine as a location for IB but if the idea is to move it, Peabody is as good if not better than any other choice right now.
My concern with Peabody is the same as the issue with Reizenstein. It is less accessible to other parts of the city -- and PAT is cutting not adding. It's just not that easy to get to and from Peabody from other parts of the city.
IF the IB program can fill up on kids from the East End, it will survive. However, its location is not going to encourage the district-wide interest that it should have and has had in the past.
I don't know. They said the same thing about a corn field in Iowa, but they built it...and people came, lol.
The same comments could be made about CAPA, and yet people send their kids. I disagree with your assertions. If parents want their kids to go to a good school like IB, they'll find a way to get them there.
Uh, well, CAPA has the most accessible to the whole city location there is!
Talk to kids who ride two and three buses to get to the IB program/Schenley and begin their rides before 6 am. I know people who sent an older child to Schenley/IB, the kid loved it, but the younger sibs are not going -- it was too much hassle after the move to Reizenstein; they no longer consider it an option.
To the Board:
As a parents whose children have been to Frick now Reizenstein and soon Peabody I am tried of this shell game. Yes, we will make the best of whatever 'choices' are pushed on us but we are not happy. The choices are not ours but the your's.
"Hot spot"?!?! New and improved?!?! It's all PR since Oakland (the original home of these schools) is not a dying area.
Please stop acting as if the parents have any REAL choices
Explain to me why, if the Peabody area is equivalent to the Reizenstein area, there is much interest in the Reizenstein property while large tracts of land next to Peabody sit vacant and boarded up? It all involves projections as to which areas are going to attract people.
Anon 9:08
East Liberty is not just off Penn Circle. It is a complex community full of families of diverse needs, strengths, and problems. It deserves a full service high school as a feeder school, as does Highland Park, not a substandard middle school in the Hill District nor a single gender school in Homewood. Those choices would be fine, if they were, in fact, choices, not feeder schools.
The Reizenstein building, to be blunt, is a piece of crap, that would cost the district millions of dollars to maintain over the years....and it still wouldn't be a quality, sustainable high school building. It is, though, the only site that would be snapped up by developers in an instant and be put back on the city tax rolls.
Peabody is also a horrible building, ruined during its 70's transformation, and is also not easily accessible by most of the city.
The PPS did have all of the qualities in a location and building for the IB program- it was called Schenley.
The Reizenstein building has a problem with temperature and rooms hot or freezing. But since it is IB they seem to assume the kids will deal with it and whatever else is thrown at them.
Anon 9:08 why, why are you and others who know the real deal not at the public hearings and speaking out to the media? The floor is left clear for PPS mouthpieces and those with vested interests.
That is only the beginnning of the problems with that building. Reports show that it would cost the same amount, over time, to maintain, as the Schenley building would have. But when there is an agenda, those findings do not matter, nor do they reach the public domain.
It was pointed out to me that the school bus bringing Homewood supporters to the hearing may have been arranged by one of the organizations- we can't assume that because it was a school bus the district arranged it. Very true!
Kathy, thanks for having the courage of your convictions with your comments.
Anonymous said... Kathy thanks for having the courage of your convictions with your comments. August 24, 2010 9:01 PM
Kathy, keep going and please never give up-you say what is necessitated with grace, poise, and sincerity. Moreover, you have my respect as well as others throughout the city of Pittsburgh for integrity and honest factual comments. The Respect you have earned is far wide and crosses many diversified communities.
My suggestion is for PPS to stop using PAT for the busing of high school students and use the same bus company they use for the elementary and middle schools for transportation.
Because of the issue of feeder patterns- not only in the East End-but also throughout the whole PPS-this can be a solution.
However, we will have less snow days? Oh, the kids will not like that‼!
This is a logical solution.
Why are we using PAT anyway and not our present PPS bus company to bus all PPS students.
Please have a person explain this one.
The cost for bussing is huge. To bus the kids in High School too would be very expensive.
I do not think it makes sense to use yellow buses (only school children) for high school, as it is too expensive.
Rather, more coordination among the schedules with PPS and PAT is needed.
Frankly, I'd rather move more to a hybrid / public enabled school transit that was more like a PAT bus and less for school kids only for the younger students.
Really, we should do tons more to get the kids to and from school on bikes. Rather than a bus pass, build bike lanes, bike security at the schools, and do bike buses.
From WPXI:
"Supporters said the plan will help keep classes and athletics from dying out because of lower enrollment.
"When you're in a school that goes below a certain number, especially a high school, you just don't have the offering, both extracurricular and education alternatives. And it's fairly unfair to kids," said Superintendent Mark Roosevelt."
- Uh, why didn't anyone think of enrollment numbers as more capacity has been added to U Prep at a cost of $15M plus over the past 2 years? If as we are now hearing the Peabody building has a capacity of 1500, there would have been plenty of room to house U Prep at Peabody and include any or all Peabody students who chose U Prep rather than Westinghouse.
Or as Randall Taylor suggested, just moved Schenley to Peabody at a cost of $0 except for moving robotics. There would have been space because sci tech now absorbs some students who would have gone to Schenley, and some Peabody area students are expected to choose Westinghouse.
Post a Comment