Anonymous wrote:
"PLEASE POST THIS SEPARATELY.
From the Pittsburgh Courier:
"Other speakers attended the public hearing to voice concerns with the district’s athletic program. Specifically they expressed disproval of the district’s change to the GPA requirement for athletic participation."
“We’re trying to encourage kids to raise the bar and while we’re trying to raise the bar, you’re lowering the GPA to 1.5,” said 17-year-old Nigel Ash who was also there to promote his group Kid Nation’s Honor Roll Tour, which rewards students for their achievement in schools around the country. “When it comes to kids, we need to be inspired. Lowering it to 1.5, it’s really cheating the kids.”
How does lowering the GPA for next year advance the following PPS stated goals?
1. Closing the egregious achievement gap
between Black and White?
2. Making students "Promise Ready?"
3. Achieving the PA minimum requirement
of 72% for Reading and 63% for Math?
4. Moving PPS toward (at least) the AYP
standard of accountability for PPS?
Since it appears to be an adult problem that is negatively impacting students, why doesn't the Board just acknowledge that and suspend the 2.0 requirement for LAST year ONLY (with provisions for "interventions" to continue student participation)?
To the LOWER the standard for one day, one month or one year creates even more serious problems for the year ahead! Just does not make sense. (If anyone can make sense of this please do so here. Thanks)
Mr. Brentley, as is generally true, is RIGHT ON!"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
Re: "why doesn't the Board just acknowledge that and suspend the 2.0 requirement for LAST year ONLY (with provisions for "interventions" to continue student participation)?"- ie, kind of a retroactive approval of what was done last year- the administration's explanation seems to be that if kids who at the end of last sememster had below a 2.0 would not be able to play this year and would not have had fair warning because the 2.0 had not been enforced. Although, if they will not enforcing the 2.0 this year, they may not really "get" what they have to do in order to participate next year.
"How does lowering the GPA for next year advance the following PPS stated goals?
1. Closing the egregious achievement gap between Black and White students?
2. Making students "Promise Ready?"
3. Achieving the PA minimum requirement of 72% for Reading and 63% for Math?
4. Moving PPS toward (at least) the AYP standard of accountability for PPS? "
Good questions! Are there any answers to the questions posed here, one at a time?
Since the focus of the district is the Pittsburgh Promise, let's start with how lowering the GPA (even for one year) helps to get students "Promise Ready"?
Only two Board members spoke strongly and/or voted against this lowering of the GPA.
Mark Brentley was outraged and had every right to be since this change only further disqualifies African American students in the coming school year for the Pittsburgh Promise and prevents those with 1.5 GPAs from admission to most colleges and universities.
Sharene Shealey spoke against the statement of another Board member that you "can't legislate morality" countering that indeed we do "legislate morality." Ms. Shealey also opposed the lowering of the GPA to a 1.5 and voted "no."
It is not likely, indeed it is ridiculous to interpret that either of these two Board members want anything but the best for African American students as each of them have children in PPS.
Do any of the other Board members or central office administrators, for that matter, have children in Pittsburgh Public Schools who could be negatively impacted by such a subversive lowering of academic standards?
Good question anonymous. We know that Roosevelt had his kid in the Waldorf school, Linda Lane? , Dr. French?, Dr. Lippert? Ira Weiss? Do they have children in PPS? I don't think so!
Some of the leadership also lives outside of the City, including Fischetti in Oakmont and Camarda in Shaler.
Are there no answers to the questions posed here?
From the Board? Surely, there is a rationale for this decision that outweighs the stated Board GOALS.
From Community? From Parents? From Teachers?
From Students?
"Good question anonymous. We know that Roosevelt had his kid in the Waldorf school, Linda Lane? , Dr. French?, Dr. Lippert? Ira Weiss? Do they have children in PPS? I don't think so!
August 27, 2011 8:56 AM"
Only 3 (recent) administrators I can think of that had kids in PPS were Berdnik, Bergie & Lopez. They are no longer there though.
Its about time that we elect someone without any personal agendas other than to protect the tax payers and see that the students get a world-class education. You are a breath of fresh air. QSLNLMSV
Watching the televised Legislative Meeting reveals a general lack of competence all around the table. Many of the statements made were incoherent and followed by comment after comment that did nothing to clarify what appeared to be a general lack of understanding about what they were doing or why.
The submerged laughter and general amusement accompanied by side comments among central administrators revealed utter disrespect and condescension for Board members. Such behavior by Central Office is an indicator of substantive insecurity. The need to ridicule others is always a sign of incompetence.
PPS is in trouble so deep that it is going to be a long road to recovery.
"Such behavior by Central Office is an indicator of substantive insecurity. The need to ridicule others is always a sign of incompetence. "
Disagree. While that may be true, it's more a sign of the arrogance which goes along with considering yourself "untouchable." Central administration believes it can do what it pleases and that it is above the "little people"--parents, teachers and students.
The rationale that Tom Sumpter used for reducing the gpa from a 2.0 to a 1.5 is because he said the 2.0 reguirement was not being enforced across the board. He said some players were allowed to play for some coaches and they had lower than a 2.0. So he said this new policy would allow coaches to all start enforcing the policy all at the same time.
Now this is crazy. Instead of punishing the coaches who have violated the policy they are rewarding those coaches by recognizing that it was ok. Every coach who allowed players to play with less than a 2.0 cheated and should be fired. And if they won games during that period the games should be forfited not given a break.
Now Tom wants it lower to 1.0 too and he wants the gym grade added in as well. You know why? Here is the reason. His sister is the head basketball coach for Westinghouse High school. And she has been suspended and cited for serrious PIAA violations. He has a personal interest in allowing her to continue to allow low academic performing players particpate. He he knows if his gym teacher sister can add in the gym grade she can boost up the gpa. So he advocated to change the whole policy to allow this cheating to continue and Linda Lane couldnt even see through it.
When was she suspended and cited? If that is true there should be a public record.
A PPS televised show last year included a glowing segment about the Westinghouse girls' basketball team and discussing study sessions for team members.
In February 2009 the coach was suspended for a year for allegedly trying to recruit a Langley High School player, a charge that fizzled when Langley dropped the charge.
The coach is his sister-in-law. She is Sarah Sumpter's sister.
She was also suspended for recruiting a Carrick player previously.
Westinghouse is one school that didn't enforce the eligibility requirements! It's harder now to "fudge" eligibility because Central Admin. and Gavlik can look at every student's grades and attendance. Before this, schools could cheat and did.
Check out Channel 44, NOW and observe the preoccupation with Blackberries by Lippert and French.
The lowered GPA, etc. is under discussion.
The gap and overall performance among PPS comes with poor school spirit. Being defeated all the time stinks, for the overall school.
The 1.5 puts PPS on par w WPIAL schools in terms of eligibility. More fair.
I don't know if this will make sense to any of you, but here is a quick stab at some reasons for a different eligibility policy. Sadly, none of this was well communicated nor discussed among a wider community.
My $.02.
The aim is to educate more, not less or fewer. Coaches have been not able to extend their reach for the good. PPS needs all the leverage it can muster.
Finally, the old way was not working. So, a change is needed.
I don't think sports should be constructed just for the ones who do get good grades.
Everyone has both brain and body. To get to both, build from top or build from bottom. Different strokes for different folks.
Are you really advocating for students to aspire to a 1.5 GPA or are you saying that that is as good as athletes can do?
Is it not more likely the case that both of these assumptions are totally false. Teaching and learning in our schools must be in place for our students such that: all students are motivated to achieve at the minimum, a 2.5 GPA, bar none who have intelligence in the normal range.
It is unconscionable that PPS cannot achieve such a goal for the multiple hundreds of students being "left behind" especially since it is required for the Pittsburgh Promise and for entry to college and for success in careers.
The flight to charters, private schools, parochial schools, cyber schools, home schooling, or just "dropping out" becomes clearer and clearer.
WPIAL has raised GPA to 2.0 recently as PPS lowered it to 1.5.
The City league sports are the worst in western PA except in basketball. And that is because it doesnt take much cost to fill a basketball team. We need water sports too and golf. This will cuturalrize the urban kids. But Dr. lane's answer was to lower the academic standards to get as many African American kids to particpate in football and basketball with the hope that they will not leave the district. The more students more state dollars. So hurt their college futures by giving them a ball, so they will be happy, while the white students suck up the promise money. I love it.
The city league football was doomed the moment they took the games from their home field. This took all the community involvement out of the process. You should see the game attendance, its embarrasing. If security was a issue, we should have beef it up, not take it away from the community. So goes the football team so goes the school. Its a damm shame what we have done to our kids and Lane a non athlete could careless.
Taking the community and alumni out of sports was the worst move for city sports. Also the band is all at capa, but they dont even have sports, go figure. But how would Dr. Lane know this, she has no ideal on how sports effect the morale and pride of the schools.
And now she lowers the standards for academics too. This is a contradiction of excellent for all. I mean which one is it Dr. Lane? Do you even have a plan? This is a urban district and not Iowa.
Neither.
Are you serious?
Do you really want to Bar everyone who does not have the intelligence and good fortune of the norm?
It is unconscionable. I do not want to live in unconscionable land. Rather, reality.
This has less to do with flight to charters and more to do with the flight to drop out status.
Teachers cannot serve on the Board is clearly a conflict of interest but so is having family of Board members employed by PPS. Tom Sumpter is one case in point! Collaizi and her son, Fink has her extended family employed by PPS, and Hazuda had a daughter-in-law hired shortly after she was elected. Apparently, nepotism is alive and well at PPS. The school code law needs to be changed to eliminate nepotism within PUBLIC schools.
Very serious 6:31! The "norm" covers the majority and we create our own "reality." And we CAN create a reality in schools where the vast majority of student, yes, even Black student, can achieve at a 2.5 provided that there is quality in teachers, standards,lessons, administration, such that students do not have to flee to find it elsewhere.
And who and/or what is the projectile for the "flight to drop-out status" that you reference?
The projectile to the flight for dropping out is the absence of sports. So, bigger barriers to participation increases the capacity for the flight to nowhere.
Since that was a serious question,
...
Are you really advocating for students to aspire to a 1.5 GPA or are you saying that that is as good as athletes can do?
...
I am done.
You were nicer about "Are you really advocating for students to aspire to a 1.5 GPA or are you saying that that is as good as athletes can do?" than I would have been, Mark!
Assuming that someone is either racist or has no expectations or both is the trick of the administration as well. They've decreased all sorts of opportunities for kids and tout classes with less content and easier grading as more rigorous...
But if you call them on it, somehow your criticism means you hate the students.
That was the question(?)! And anyone who believes that students should aspire to a 1.5 GPA or believes that the majority of athletes in PPS can't do better could easily and rightly be seen as a racist and needs to be "called on it."
That would also apply to those who "decreased all sorts of opportunities for kids and tout classes with less content and easier grading as more rigorous..."
Just hoping to clear any confusion here . . .
I agree with Mark but will say this: the only fly in the ointment here is the district's 50% policy. That is, you almost have to try to do poorly to get grades below 2.0.
I believe so much in athletics and what it can do for kids, certainly far beyond the idea of winning and losing. I believe athletics can certainly help a lot of our kids who don't see the value of academics. The experience tends to open eyes and change perceptions of youngsters.
But there is a small percentage of kids who come to school and do nothing. You almost wonder why they come. I'm not sure that this type of kid should be 'rewarded' by being able to play a sport.
Yep. That 50% thing is a big fly. Same too with the noise about some schools not following the rules on eligibility in the past. Weirdness.
I say often that if PPS could just get rid of the weirdness, it would be most of the way home.
KDKA radio gave 2 hours to this topic today. One with Marty Griffina and another with Mike Pintik.
Mark Brentley called in at the end with a good quote. The radio host Mike Pinhead (whatever) said he likes Dr Lane, and he did like the change in the policy. But Brentley said she gets paid well to educate, not raise gladiators.
Zing.
Marty G has some Facebook noise if you want to see some digital dust on what others are thinking. Marty does not like the lazed standards.
A third hour on KDKA radio, today, at 6 pm. Same topic.
Dr Lane said the policy was temporary. Say what?
The policy is supposed to be for the 2011-12 school year only, then it goes back to 2.0; the idea is by then students will have fair notice and a chance to improve.
Post a Comment