On another post Anonymous wrote:
The remarks by Dr. Steve Perry, today at the Educational Forum at the August Wilson Center, were strong and 'dead on.'
"Dr. Perry courageously stepped forward in outright opposition to Dr. Lane and Esther Bush who continue to blame poverty and other 'conditions' for not being able to educate all children to high
levels. (Although it appears the the Urban League has proficiency in the 90th %ile.)
Dr. Perry advocated for the closing of all "failing schools."
Sala Udin stood and advocated for transforming all "failing" schools into schools that educated all children successfully.
We CAN make that happen if the Community is UNITED, and PPS changes its current philosophy."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Doesn't the Urban League get to pick and choose students?
As for closing failing schools- how long should a new school like U Prep be given? If after 4 years it is considered a failure and closed, what if the replacement also fails? It seems like constant "fresh starts" would enable a district to escape accountability for its failures.
That's what the district is doing now, escaping accountability. You had to be there to hear the perspectives, many of which this site would not support based on what is published here.
No one used the term "fresh starts" since it is not about students' "failure" but rather the failure of adults in schools.
New schools are helping the district to escape accountability right now. The reason the district does not have to answer for the problems at Westinghouse, Oliver and Peabody over the past 6 years is because new programs or plans for new programs are in place.
The "grand plan" is not about success for students, it is about opportunity for increased revenue for private companies profiting off public institutions. (insert venture philanthropy too) It is so simple to figure out..how many "consulting companies" have profited from all this test taking BS? NCLB=No consultants left behind.
Educated people have been fooled, educators have been fooled, it needs to stop.
How and why does our elected board allow this to happen? Again- a prime example of a failure of governance and poor stewardship of public funds.
Thinking outside the box for PPS . . . .
I wonder what would happen if PPS sought more "Steve Perry" models from within by encouraging every school to submit a design/plan that is unique to its own community of students, teachers, parents, administrators.
In other words, why not create PPS internal 'charters.'
The educators in PPS schools certainly could lead the way to much more successful schools than we currently have in place across this city.
Encourage and support the schools in the Hill and Homewood to create their own schools!
I've wondered about that too. Or, at the state level changing charter laws so that after x years (5? 8?) successful charters can be "returned" to the district intact. They would maintain their structure and staffing according to a contract worked out during the return.
This would certainly add more choice for families both during the charter stage and the return stage and instead of the district "competing" with a charter, they'd be pulling for it to succeed and return. They could also use it as a model for other schools, if desired.
Starting a charter school is a very entrepreneurial venture. It may not yield returns (either monetary or the satisfaction of improved performance) for several years. It would be hard to convince people to take the risk if they would then have to turn the school over to a district any time soon... especially because the district could well be under the influence of organizations like Broad, which will always be convinced that they can come in and do a better job. Or subject to leaders who want to be visionary and experiment with their own ideas
Starting a charter school is a very entrepreneurial venture. It may not yield returns (either monetary or the satisfaction of improved performance) for several years. It would be hard to convince people to take the risk if they would then have to turn the school over to a district any time soon... especially because the district could well be under the influence of organizations like Broad, which will always be convinced that they can come in and do a better job. Or subject to leaders who want to be visionary and experiment with their own ideas
Exactly -- that's why there would have to be both changes to the current state charter laws that would spell out the conditions and a contract between the charter and the district covering the decision. It would have to be a mutual decision, not a "takeover."
Other than the property costs, the average time to amortize other start-up costs could be taken into consideration at the length of time before the charter is able to be brought back into the fold.
In some states charters are given access to unused district space -- thus cutting out one of the biggest entrepreneurial aspects currently, which is the cost of acquiring and maintaining buildings big enough to hold a school.
My understanding is that that is one of the biggest reasons ECS went with Imagine rather than as a stand alone, as originally planned. Imagine owns the buildings and maintains them, leasing them back to the school.
If all those buildings on the list of district properties for sale were available to charters and charters were given the space for the cost of utilities and maintenance (more than one school/entity might share the space) it would be more like the situation in (some) other states.
Getting rid of the entrepreneurial aspects of charters would be a *good* thing in my mind. People should be making a living running a school, they should NOT be profiting at the taxpayer's expense.
There are years of unpaid work and risk behind every charter school- by their very nature they are entrepreneurial ventures. Rewards may be monetary, psychic (achievement, doing good, etc) or both. Is there really a length of time that would reward those starting the school and still be within a district's timeframe (ie, are districts really interested in thinking about receiving back a school in 10 years, several superintendents later, with the district likely expecting to have found its own answers by then).
Then they wouldn't do it. On either side.
But, in the long run, we either try to stabilize and maintain public education or ...
I don't think that continually draining students off to charters, whether in a flood or a trickle is a good thing. The district keeps losing students and money and then has to cut more and more, making it less appealing and then losing more students.
Where does that scenario lead in our urban districts?
No, No. Not more separate Charters. That's not what meant by allowing PPS district schools create their own agendas, themes, curricula that would enhance State Standards, Common Core, etc.; but, instead, creating (with communities, parents, teachers, students) 'new' schools from within the district, similar to what they did during the 90's in New York. No going back and forth between District and Charter laws etc.; just allowing our own schools some autonomy in the ways that they design programs that, in fact, meet State and National Standards, engage and prepare kids for successful futures and draw students instead of chasing them from city schools. Take the control and one-size-fits-all away from Central Office. This could be done in an organized, detailed, educational, and success-oriented manner by the people in PPS schools and communities that are so disenfranchised.
The talent, commitment, experience and expertise is HERE in Pittsburgh. No consultants need apply.
Please don't make this more complicated than it needs to be___those of you who are not educators!
8:10 probably should NOT have used the word CHARTER at all, since the concept was to create unique schools WITHIN the PPS district.
The word "charter" was used merely to convey unique design and educational plan. Each school (in PPS) would be given the opportunity to design a successful school for its community; and, YES it CAN be rather easily accomplished. We (educators) know enough to do it provided that there is NO INTERFERENCE from Central Office. CO can assist when and only when assistance is requested.
Creativity, collaboration, communication, cooperation, consensus and "common core" thinking could transform every one of our now "failing" city schools.
Anon 12:22
I agree with you -- it's the old magnet model, too. However, what you describe will NEVER happen in this district with its current administration. That is not the Broad/Gates model and it would negate all the (often horrible) changes they've made to the curriculum, to the scripting and pacing, to their sense that if everyone is on the same page, saying the same thing every day, every single children regardless of interest, talent, and previous experience will achieve at high levels.
What you describe is what I would like too. But it would go against everything this upper admin and all but one Board member are committed to doing.
That's why I'd like to see a work around to the slow death that's coming otherwise.
To 1:10 - Yes, you are right in your assessment of Central Office; however, those who see solutions to the chaotic and continuing decline of PPS must continue to conceive and offer options in the hope that someone, somewhere will begin to coalesce a more "committed" group of individuals who will rise beyond the malaise of some and misuse of power in central administration to bring to fruition the equity and excellence that our city children deserve.
Not trying to be a wet balnket at the party, but, how many people under 18 heard the Perry message? Under 15? Under 12? Under 9? The under 9'ers are the ones to reach NOW.
We will reach them through good educational experiences in schools that know how to do that. Perry was about reaching adults and he reached a few, not nearly enough for the change we need NOW among adults, educators, advocates, reformists, and real radicals when it comes to education.
Steve Perry served to put PPS on notice in terms of what needs to be done; however, one can only hope it did not fall on deaf ears among those in the audience who must come together to advance a revolutionary movement in Pittsburgh.
PPS stays on point without a single strategy or solution that deviates creatively from the status quo. It should have been embarrassing; but . . .
On second thought you may be right 7:10. Currently, the kids seem to be running the schools, so the best strategy may be getting to the kids from under 9 to 18.
Kids will change things much more quickly than Central Administration. They are the hope for the future, so perhaps finding ways to get the message to them might just be the answer!
We need a new version of the Believe campaign directed to kids. All this alleged product improvement and programs and curriculum yakkity-yak and they don't all seem to have gotten on board. What is different from their seats in the classroom? They don't know a teacher has been empowered, do they? Once a parent suggested at an EFA parent meeting that the next hire be a full-time motivational speaker who would float between schools. He/she would walk into classes and take over for a period and deliver a talk that would motivate and inspire and lead to kids taking control of their own work and future. The message was that you can overcome your background or circumstances through hard work. Golly gosh, if some consultant would have suggested this we'd see it now.
That motivational speaker that goes among different classrooms sounds much like athletic team coaches. Oh wait. GREAT athletic team coaches.
"The message was that you can overcome your background or circumstances through hard work."
Yep.
And more so, do the hard work. Show the students how to work hard, how to work smart, how to leverage their energy into teamwork and beyond. Set a training schedule. Demand excellence. Lead groups of students on a daily basis.
Is there any video of the event? URLs????
Post a Comment