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.
Agreed! The answers to Mr. Brentley's questions are very carefully worded, such that one must question what is not being said. The same with Theresa Colaizzi's queries
Explanations though seemingly detailed are questionable. Critical pieces are missing.
The privatization of public education is a huge issue here.
This is an obvious move to privatize Alt. Ed. in the PPS. This is most dangerous because these are our most vulnerable children with NO advocates. When you couple that with a for-profit company that is a troublesome combination. The Administration should speak frankly about the assigning of ten or one year weapons charges students (many students with weapons charges could be anything deemed at the moment a weapon. In many instances they are kids who made a mistake. This is why the District give nearly every student accelerated return) to CEP.
I always priortized ALT. ED. because I felt someone should. The best route was for the District to Charter an Alt. Ed. School. This would allow different strategies and people to be employed. Yet, I strong partnership with the District must, and would, exist. The District could even become an Alt. Ed. resource for other School District, and generate income. The creation of CEP was all politics. I fear the politics are continuing.
3 comments:
Independent Audit needed
Agreed! The answers to Mr. Brentley's questions are very carefully worded, such that one must question what is not being said. The same with Theresa Colaizzi's queries
Explanations though seemingly detailed are questionable. Critical pieces are missing.
The privatization of public education is a huge issue here.
How do you get an independent audit?
This is an obvious move to privatize Alt. Ed. in the PPS. This is most dangerous because these are our most vulnerable children with NO advocates. When you couple that with a for-profit company that is a troublesome combination.
The Administration should speak frankly about the assigning of ten or one year weapons charges students (many students with weapons charges could be anything deemed at the moment a weapon. In many instances they are kids who made a mistake. This is why the District give nearly every student accelerated return) to CEP.
I always priortized ALT. ED. because I felt someone should. The best route was for the District to Charter an Alt. Ed. School. This would allow different strategies and people to be employed. Yet, I strong partnership with the District must, and would, exist. The District could even become an Alt. Ed. resource for other School District, and generate income.
The creation of CEP was all politics. I fear the politics are continuing.
Post a Comment