This is the blog section of the PURE Reform website. Please leave your thoughts and comments here.
PURE Reform has created this blog as a forum for parents, teachers and community members to share information and voice concerns regrading the reform process in the Pittsburgh Public Schools. Although we would like to foster constructive dialogue, PURE Reform does not edit content. The views expressed by bloggers in this forum are not necessarily views held by PURE Reform.
To comment on an existing topic, go to the line at the bottom of the post for that topic that begins "Posted by..." That line will list "1 comment," "2 comments," etc. Click on "comments," then leave your comment in the box provided. To post as Anonymous, no registration is required, OR you can choose an identity.
To suggest a new topic, go to this month's post labeled "Start a New Post" and add your comment (as described above) about the new suggested topic. PURE Reform will use these comments to start new posts.
I applaud the Courier-- it has become THE independent thinking newspaper in this city- I mae an effort to read it since September. Please keep sharing the truth with the world. I do have a question though--at some point the restructuring of Westinghouse was based on students getting " the same services"-- at the point where there was no CAS, why couldnt parents pull their kids out and go to a school that had the services? I know that is hard on kids-- but, so was what happened and maybe if that was made public, it could have gotten straightened out faster.But it doesnt matter now-- right now those students and families deserve all the support that PPS can and will give them. If anyone at Westinghouse can tell the rest of us how to help--put it out here. In spite of PPS, we care here.
Perhaps I have not paid enough attention but can anyone tell me where the HCZ gets its funding?
Also, have the two principals been reassigned or are they still on paid leave?
I am still stumped, wonder why the district went ahead with single-gender despite knowing that the ACLU would object in the form of a court battle if needed.
PPS always believes its new schools and new programs will be phenomenal successes, and so they probably assumed that the school would be so successful that no one would protest.
The Superintendent never fails to ask for the research, the evidence for every and any program it considers.
Yet, there is no conclusive evidence that the programs are 'fail safe.' Yes, some program can cite a success or two, but none have come close to being proven successful for the majority of those implementing them.
The most successful schools and districts have proven educators that ensure success through depth of experience, expertise, commitment, and creativity. That is what it takes. PPS does not have that in its Central Office and has eliminated anyone who dares to come equipped with such skills and commitment.
One size never fits all and CO lacks the previously cited qualifications. Success will always elude this group. It is time for change at CO. We need new people to create "new schools, new programs that will be phenomenal successes" !
Parents who got the school choice letter when their school did not make AYP were stunned that Westinghouse was a suggested alternative. Despite all the chaos and now change, it has no PSSA track record and therefore a choice school. Can this be right?
According to the law, any school that closes and changes something (name, program, whatever) is qualified to wipe the slate clean and start all over, dismissing all previous PSSA data since it is now a "new" school. This "new" school gets three years free of any accountability to the State for AYP and PSSA scores are NOT reported. This will begin this year for the "new" Westinghouse. Just as University Prep's PSSA/AYP did not count for the last three years (no scores are available for those years). This last year (2010-11) after three years of allowing the "new program" to take effect the PSSA scores were published for each grade level. The 11th grade PSSA scores (the students who had been there all three years in the "new" program were as follows: Math 22% "Proficient" and Reading 32% "Proficient."
These students are NOW in 12th grade and will GRADUATE this year. Most likely they will also get "Promise" scholarships. Are they prepared for college with Reading and Math basic skills at nearly 70% to 80% NOT PROFICIENT?
Central Office does not have a clue about how to create schools that educate children, but the money is good and job secure.
Will the Westinghouse "new" program produce better results (three years from now) than University Prep?
What are the chances with the same CO in place? What evidence will it take for the public to take action? A good attorney has more than enough right now with the abundant data . . . however . . .
"Central Office does not have a clue about how to create schools that educate children, but the money is good and job secure."
The PR Department takes over and the spinning begins again and again. . . .
How about, before anyone is hired for the administration's "academic team," he or she is required to teach a typical PPS class for a year and achieve 80% proficiency.
Wonderful, practical, accountable idea; but, are you a part of the CO Team making the decision?
Those in place would lose their jobs if they were required to do thus, unless of course they are evaluating themselves, spinning data or making excuses about "poverty" being the cause of poor academic achievement instead of schools.
Currently, that is the status quo, and is not likely to change internally. The repercussions must come from those external to the system in place.
What does the ACLU or the Education Law Center do to ensure the education of all children if such is the case?
We should be able to trust state results on whether the class was 80% proficient Even if they managed to slip a kid or two past (for example by getting them qualified for special education and an alternate test), the would be administrator would have to show real results. And you can be sure that class's school would receive all the social services necessary to counteract the effects of poverty. It would be important to ensure that going forward all schools receive that same level of social services.
Yes, we can trust the state to provide the accurate data; but, that data is NOT reported by our local outlets which is what the people see, hear, believe, and act upon.
Yes, we can try to counter that at every opportunity; but the POWERS-that-be PROFIT (or think they do) from the 'spin" that comes from CO at PPS.
And, finally, the best way to "counter the effects of poverty" is to provide a good education. Schools can change lives with the right educators who believe in their own capability to educate all children. . . no excuses!
It is happening every day in schools all over this nation.
If there were a list like this it could be used to analyze the results, see if it includes any Broad/Gates, investigate whether high priced consultants had a large role in any successful schools, compare the techniques to those used in PPS, compare the background and average level of experience of principals at those schools to that of other schools, look into the functioning of school boards for those schools v. other schools, etc.
Why would such a list be secret anyway? Who wouldn't want to post it?
My guess is that there are very few schools that have low attrition AND consistent (5 plus years) of large score increases and/or consistently high scores.
There are several charters I can think of that may be on their way to this, BUT most do have high attrition. If you are getting rid of the kids who don't improve, then that's not "no excuses."
Other schools that have been sold as great successes often turn out to be not so great -- like that one HS they kept talking about and how many of its grads went on to college (wasn't it one they visited on the W'house trips?) -- then it turned out that the students were something like more than 80% below proficient on the state tests.
That's not no excuses, that's really effective, but deceitful, PR.
The whole "no excuses" refrain is kind of bogus because it refuses to recognize the distinction between an excuse and an explanation.
If a doctor explains that he/she was unable to cure a patient because the patient had a really nasty cancer that we simply do not know yet how to attack, it would be unfair to say that the doctor was making excuses. "No excuses" should pertain to situations that are clearly in the doctor's complete control, such as operating on the correct body part. In the context of education, "no excuses" begs the very question being debated- whether educational outcomes depend entirely on what happens during the hours a student is with a teacher each day.
Questioner - The schools who make "no excuses" get the job done and do not need "explanations" of why they cannot do it. It is a much better "refrain" than the one that sings "poverty" is the cause of the failure to achieve.
Ronald Edmonds put forth a proposition that has served as the touchstone of the school effectiveness movement ever since:
"We can, whenever and wherever we choose, successfully teach children whose schooling is of interest to us."
This proposition has two parts: one is the assertion that every child can learn; the other, that we have the knowledge we need to create schools in which every child will learn.
Westinghouse was never given the administrative support to succeed. Now they have reinjected Crenshaw back there. She was terrible the first time around and getting worst every day. The Courier should look into the real story behind the mask of what is happening at Westinghouse under her rule. It is a powder Keg
The four women in top positions at Bellefield Avenue are totally responsible for the disaster at Westinghouse. Their decisions reveal a very deep and wide lack of knowledge, experience and understanding of is required to administer, successfully, schools with a majority of African American students. There is no one else that can be blamed. The decisions in place belong to these four women and no one else.
It is criminal to place students in a situation where they have no access to a good education.
This is a discussion about majority African American high schools, right? Two new schools which happen to be majority African American (U Prep and Westinghouse) have particularly serious problems, and responsibility should also be placed on the person who designed them (Derrick Lopez) and the superintendent who approved the designs (Mark Roosevelt).
30 comments:
I applaud the Courier-- it has become THE independent thinking newspaper in this city- I mae an effort to read it since September. Please keep sharing the truth with the world. I do have a question though--at some point the restructuring of Westinghouse was based on students getting " the same services"-- at the point where there was no CAS, why couldnt parents pull their kids out and go to a school that had the services? I know that is hard on kids-- but, so was what happened and maybe if that was made public, it could have gotten straightened out faster.But it doesnt matter now-- right now those students and families deserve all the support that PPS can and will give them. If anyone at Westinghouse can tell the rest of us how to help--put it out here. In spite of PPS, we care here.
Perhaps I have not paid enough attention but can anyone tell me where the HCZ gets its funding?
Also, have the two principals been reassigned or are they still on paid leave?
I am still stumped, wonder why the district went ahead with single-gender despite knowing that the ACLU would object in the form of a court battle if needed.
PPS always believes its new schools and new programs will be phenomenal successes, and so they probably assumed that the school would be so successful that no one would protest.
The Superintendent never fails to ask for the research, the evidence for every and any program it considers.
Yet, there is no conclusive evidence that the programs are 'fail safe.' Yes, some program can cite a success or two, but none have come close to being proven successful for the majority of those implementing them.
The most successful schools and districts have proven educators that ensure success through depth of experience, expertise, commitment, and creativity. That is what it takes. PPS does not have that in its Central Office and has eliminated anyone who dares to come equipped with such skills and commitment.
One size never fits all and CO lacks the previously cited qualifications. Success will always elude this group. It is time for change at CO. We need new people to create "new schools, new programs that will be phenomenal successes" !
Parents who got the school choice letter when their school did not make AYP were stunned that Westinghouse was a suggested alternative. Despite all the chaos and now change, it has no PSSA track record and therefore a choice school. Can this be right?
According to the law, any school that closes and changes something (name, program, whatever) is qualified to wipe the slate clean and start all over, dismissing all previous PSSA data since it is now a "new" school. This "new" school gets three years free of any accountability to the State for AYP and PSSA scores are NOT reported. This will begin this year for the "new" Westinghouse. Just as University Prep's PSSA/AYP did not count for the last three years (no scores are available for those years). This last year (2010-11) after three years of allowing the "new program" to take effect the PSSA scores were published for each grade level. The 11th grade PSSA scores (the students who had been there all three years in the "new" program were as follows: Math 22% "Proficient" and Reading 32% "Proficient."
These students are NOW in 12th grade and will GRADUATE this year. Most likely they will also get "Promise" scholarships. Are they prepared for college with Reading and Math basic skills at nearly 70% to 80% NOT PROFICIENT?
Central Office does not have a clue about how to create schools that educate children, but the money is good and job secure.
Will the Westinghouse "new" program produce better results (three years from now) than University Prep?
What are the chances with the same CO in place? What evidence will it take for the public to take action? A good attorney has more than enough right now with the abundant data . . . however . . .
"Central Office does not have a clue about how to create schools that educate children, but the money is good and job secure."
The PR Department takes over and the spinning begins again and again. . . .
How about, before anyone is hired for the administration's "academic team," he or she is required to teach a typical PPS class for a year and achieve 80% proficiency.
Wonderful, practical, accountable idea; but, are you a part of the CO Team making the decision?
Those in place would lose their jobs if they were required to do thus, unless of course they are evaluating themselves, spinning data or making excuses about "poverty" being the cause of poor academic achievement instead of schools.
Currently, that is the status quo, and is not likely to change internally. The repercussions must come from those external to the system in place.
What does the ACLU or the Education Law Center do to ensure the education of all children if such is the case?
We should be able to trust state results on whether the class was 80% proficient Even if they managed to slip a kid or two past (for example by getting them qualified for special education and an alternate test), the would be administrator would have to show real results. And you can be sure that class's school would receive all the social services necessary to counteract the effects of poverty. It would be important to ensure that going forward all schools receive that same level of social services.
Yes, we can trust the state to provide the accurate data; but, that data is NOT reported by our local outlets which is what the people see, hear, believe, and act upon.
Yes, we can try to counter that at every opportunity; but the POWERS-that-be PROFIT (or think they do) from the 'spin" that comes from CO at PPS.
And, finally, the best way to "counter the effects of poverty" is to provide a good education. Schools can change lives with the right educators who believe in their own capability to educate all children. . . no excuses!
It is happening every day in schools all over this nation.
It would be great to have a list of specific high poverty schools that have consistently achieved strong results for at least 5 years.
Questioner, what would you do with such a list?
If there were a list like this it could be used to analyze the results, see if it includes any Broad/Gates, investigate whether high priced consultants had a large role in any successful schools, compare the techniques to those used in PPS, compare the background and average level of experience of principals at those schools to that of other schools, look into the functioning of school boards for those schools v. other schools, etc.
Why would such a list be secret anyway? Who wouldn't want to post it?
My guess is that there are very few schools that have low attrition AND consistent (5 plus years) of large score increases and/or consistently high scores.
There are several charters I can think of that may be on their way to this, BUT most do have high attrition. If you are getting rid of the kids who don't improve, then that's not "no excuses."
Other schools that have been sold as great successes often turn out to be not so great -- like that one HS they kept talking about and how many of its grads went on to college (wasn't it one they visited on the W'house trips?) -- then it turned out that the students were something like more than 80% below proficient on the state tests.
That's not no excuses, that's really effective, but deceitful, PR.
The whole "no excuses" refrain is kind of bogus because it refuses to recognize the distinction between an excuse and an explanation.
If a doctor explains that he/she was unable to cure a patient because the patient had a really nasty cancer that we simply do not know yet how to attack, it would be unfair to say that the doctor was making excuses. "No excuses" should pertain to situations that are clearly in the doctor's complete control, such as operating on the correct body part. In the context of education, "no excuses" begs the very question being debated- whether educational outcomes depend entirely on what happens during the hours a student is with a teacher each day.
Are you suggesting that medicine and education are identical in properties?
Hmmm. Are they analogous and/or metaphorical examples of the same construct?
Yes, useful analogies can be made between situations in education and in other professions.
Questioner - The schools who make "no excuses" get the job done and do not need "explanations" of why they cannot do it. It is a much better "refrain" than the one that sings "poverty" is the cause of the failure to achieve.
Again, which schools (by name) are those? Without that information, "no excuses" just attempts to belittle valid concerns by labeling them as excuses.
Education Week discussion "The 90/90/90 Schools Myth":
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/on_performance/2011/05/909090_schools_revisited.html
Ronald Edmonds put forth a proposition that has served as the touchstone of the school effectiveness movement ever since:
"We can, whenever and wherever we choose, successfully teach children whose schooling is of interest to us."
This proposition has two parts: one is the assertion that every child can learn; the other, that we have the knowledge we need to create schools in which every child will learn.
Just the list please. Otherwise, move on.
Propel McKeesport
Westinghouse was never given the administrative support to succeed. Now they have reinjected Crenshaw back there. She was terrible the first time around and getting worst every day. The Courier should look into the real story behind the mask of what is happening at Westinghouse under her rule. It is a powder Keg
The four women in top positions at Bellefield Avenue are totally responsible for the disaster at Westinghouse. Their decisions reveal a very deep and wide lack of knowledge, experience and understanding of is required to administer, successfully, schools with a majority of African American students. There is no one else that can be blamed. The decisions in place belong to these four women and no one else.
It is criminal to place students in a situation where they have no access to a good education.
Obama and sci tech and perry and langley have a majority african american students and are running pretty well.
That's wonderful! What happened in all of the other 50+ schools?
This is a discussion about majority African American high schools, right? Two new schools which happen to be majority African American (U Prep and Westinghouse) have particularly serious problems, and responsibility should also be placed on the person who designed them (Derrick Lopez) and the superintendent who approved the designs (Mark Roosevelt).
Wow, Propel McKeesport. Yeah, it's a charter school that can get rid of "trouble" kids.
Obama and Sci-Tech do not use the CO mandated core curriculums.
Way to go!
Post a Comment