Thursday, October 20, 2011

PPS to address underenrollment

From the PG:


Questioner said...

Strangely, this article about addressing underenrollment has no information about this year's enrollment figures. Is enrollment up compared to last year, down, or the same? What grades, areas and schools had increases and decreases?

Anonymous said...

There's basically nothing in the article about enrollment. Kept wondering if they'd put the wrong headline on it.

Anonymous said...

Looks like enrollment is down, it must be bad if they are keeping it a secret. Not one C level employee will be touched by this. This is a joke.

Old Timer said...

Questioner, perhaps this should be a separate thread, but...

All teachers received a poorly written email from their respective principals last night about Dr.Lane's proposals. I'm sure that any teacher worth his or her salt would have seen that it was ghost written by central administration, evidenced by the carbon copy going to respective assistant superintendents.
The letter is quite probably the worst bit of propaganda I have been treated to from this district in three decades. Once again, it is another "we're all in this together" diatribe that talks about national notoriety and how we have achieved AYP. The message seeks to soothe teachers who are nervous about their positions while giving even the most casual reader that Dr.Lane will not seek to end the bloat that exists at Bellefield Avenue and other locations where numerous individuals are called "administrators" or "supervisors" and have absolutely NO connection to the students.
In her comments, Dr.Lane continues to cling to the idea of the RISE/Teacher effectiveness program that targets teachers at any time while calling the idea "empowering" for teachers. Among other things, the bottom line is...many, many teachers are going to be fired. Schools are going to be closed. Classes are going to be huge. Electives are going to be ended.

But administration that does not impact your students will keep their jobs.

How in the world does this group of people get away with such blather?
How does any teacher--any teacher--still support the PFT, who incidentally, also are on the PPS payroll????

The grandstanding in this email and in the comment to taxpayers about "fiscal responsibility to not raise taxes" is a grotesque example of ideologies being put before the needs of our children.

Anonymous said...

what do you consider underenrollment first of all? also i thought that the Pgh. Promise brought in new families that is a form of increase enrollment now all of suddenly you have underenrollment you cant have both at the same time meaning do we have to pick which is which!!! and the other thing going from small classes to big classes what's next we going from a big lunch to small lunch next thing you know we be using smaller school bus i am just looking at things from a perspective base on the underenrollment,smaller enrollment means smaller staff ( ADMINISTRATION) and so forth in closing we be kicking a SMALLER CAN DOWN THE ROAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!