Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Public Source article on the Pittsburgh Promise

http://publicsource.org/investigations/keeping-promise

19 comments:

Questioner said...

Is this article as investigative as it could or should be? For example, a commentator wrote extensively about problems with the incentives promised to teachers.

Anonymous said...

.The following was noted at the article's conclusion:

"The Pittsburgh Foundation and the Heinz Endowments, which are funders of PublicSource, are major supporters of The Pittsburgh Promise."

Questioner, surely don't think that the INTENT of this article was investigative?

Anonymous said...

In thinking through this tangled mess our district finds itself in and the great lengths the Roosevelt/Lane/Fischetti/Weiss administration have gone to in order to squash dissent, I'm reminded of the works of historian Henry Steele Commager:

"Men in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and find criticism subversive."

Questioner said...

These comments were posted on the March 2012 thread, "Westinghouse seeks new principal":

Anonymous said...
Part one:
In light of the latest recruiting efforts for Westinghouse, I offer you a rather extensive cautionary tale for anyone considering employment in the Pittsburgh Public Schools.
At the end of the 2009-10 school year, Mark Roosevelt unveiled his plans to revamp and revitalize the ninth grade classrooms in the city of Pittsburgh. It was a grand plan to be sure, full of promises and pomp. He called it the PRC (Promise Readiness Corp) and promised to lavishly fund it. The premise was great—a group of teachers would be hired to teach incoming ninth graders at each high school. Those teachers would meet every day, as part of an extended day schedule, to work collaboratively towards relationship building with both students and parents. The teachers would also “loop” with the students, meaning they would teach them as a whole in both ninth grade and then, again as a team, as the students moved to tenth grade. Built into the program was mentoring, field trips, team building activities and a plethora of events meant to foster a family like atmosphere. There was, rather coyly, a $9,000 stipend mentioned as monetary incentive for these positions. Roosevelt called them “Career Ladders” and threw good money after bad to tout them as the best thing since sliced bread.
The first issue arose when it was realized that there was very little time to staff these PRCs in each building. Since time was of the essence, the upshot was that teachers could volunteer for the positions, or, as happened in many cases, they could be “recruited”. These “recruited” teachers were, in some instances, teachers who had no interest in working an extended day. The kick off for the program was scheduled at Phipps Conservatory, and the cocktails flowed freely as teachers there were informed that they would NOT get the $9,000 stipend for the first year. No, since many teachers were “recruited” and not “chosen for their superior abilities”, the first two years would be considered a pilot program for these teachers. Not to worry, however—both Union leadership and PPS administration promised these teachers a rich bonus—up to $20,000 dependent upon factors that hadn’t quite been nailed down just yet. And so, the new school year started in 2010, with PRCs in many high schools—PRCs staffed with some teachers who had volunteered and some who had been volunteered. Each received an extended day differential (approx. $10 a day) and the promise of a lovely bonus.

March 27, 2012 6:51 PM

Questioner said...

Continued:

Anonymous said...
Part two:
Let’s move to November of 2010. The PRC teams in each building were struggling to find their way, navigating new territory and breaking new ground. The PPS administration called them “pioneers” and applauded their work. Except…..except, well, that the applause was short-lived. In late November, every PRC faculty member received a letter AT THEIR HOMES stating that the current PRC teams would be disbanded at the end of the school year. The administration cited numerous reasons for the change of heart, including the fact that some teams had teachers who had been “drafted” and didn’t want to continue. Not one PFT union representative or a single PPS administrator had bothered to speak to the PRC teams directly to break the news—they left it up to each member to find out via the letters sent home. No one at any level told the parents. It was a slap in the face--and it was only November. New teams would be hired at the end of the year for the 2011-2012 school year. The consolation prize, however, was this: the bonus that had been promised (the $10k per year for a total of 20k based on yet unknown criteria) would still be given to the current teams—and it would be doubled. “Continue your great work,” teams were told. “The bonus will be there—it will be worth it in the end.” For those who were more concerned about the promises made to students and parents—the promises of team building and a two year teacher/student relationship…well, for those teachers, the “carrot” was that ( and don’t tell anyone), but SURELY you’ll be one of those hired for next year’s new team!
Cut to February of 2011. The call now went out for the new teams to be recruited and hired. Everyone, or nearly everyone, on the current PRC teams rushed to take part in an application process that would bring even the most enthusiastic employee to his/her knees. The interviews were first; then the classroom observations; then came the most damaging employment scheme ever to darken the PPS doors. The new PRC teams were chosen, and the number of teachers with little to no experience was alarming. Perhaps even more alarming, however, was the PPS administrative propaganda that insisted that it was the younger, less experienced teachers who were “highly qualified” and more capable of doing the job of teaching ninth graders. Teachers with proven track records and 20-30 years of experience were, for the most part, passed over for the PRC positions in favor of those with far less time and no track records at all. In fact, some schools were told that they simply didn’t have enough highly effective teachers to staff a PRC at all. It was truly a blow. In order to appease those who weren’t hired, however, the mantra remained—“Don’t forget about that big bonus!!”

March 27, 2012 6:52 PM

Questioner said...

Continued:

Anonymous said...
Part three:
Cut to last night. One year and seven months after the first PRC teams were put to the test of piloting a program that had been poorly executed at the District level, they finally decided to reveal the bonuses to those “pioneers”. The criteria were convoluted and required a six page explanation. Grades, passing rates of students, student attendance, CBA scores and PSAT scores were all considered. Allow me to take a brief moment to address two of those areas. CBAs are tests that are constructed at the District level for students in math, Social Studies, science and English. They are tests that assume that every teacher in the District has, in spite of the number of advanced or remedial students, maintained the same pacing allowing the same objectives to have been covered in a limited period of time. They are poorly constructed, are rife with errors, and are completely unfair to every student who is forced to endure them. As for the PSAT scores….the current managed curriculum in NO WAY prepares students for the PSAT test. In fact, the entire test is never addressed as even being IMPORTANT to students and has been shown, in a number of research studies, to be in no way indicative of a student’s academic achievement. Pardon the diversion…back to the PRC. And so, the bonuses were announced. And here we go….
Carrick teachers? ZERO. Perry teachers? ZERO. Brashear teachers? Well, two teams did well—at least $4,000 each. One team? ZERO. Allderdice? Again, some teams did well—one not so well: ZERO. Oh wait, Peabody? The school with 28 freshmen? The school with NINE PRC teachers for those 28 freshmen? $6,800 EACH.
And so colleagues arrived at work today to either lament the fact that the “pioneers” of PRC were, once again and fully, screwed. The final nail in the coffin. Others arrived at work to look at their colleagues teaching across the hall and wondering what that teacher was doing that was so much better when, in fact, the teams had been working collaboratively the whole year.
I can’t believe that there hasn’t been more outrage over this program for the past two years. Parents, where ARE YOU in this? You have come to your schools and praised the work that teachers are doing with your children. You have seen the challenges and obstacles, and you were promised a two year commitment—that was overturned without even CONTACTING YOU. Now those teachers are again being told that they aren’t doing their jobs. YOU KNOW THEY ARE! Speak up, parents, please! Denounce the CBAs. Denounce the fact that your child’s teacher was held accountable for the PSAT scores. Denounce the fact that the District is single handedly ruining morale in each and every building.
And those of you considering application for the job of the “visionary”? Can you say “sacrificial lamb”? Don’t be duped.

March 27, 2012 6:52 PM

Anonymous said...

The PRC Program was presented last night at the Education Meeting. It was very short. Christiana Otuwa read EVERY word of her very short part. The rest was done by Marni Pastor who was able to talk, briefly (without reading a script) about the program.

Questions were asked, but, as typical, there were few answers from French and Lippert who ramble without substance--- and when pressed French often does an 'about face'.

PRC is in place at Allderdice, Brashear and Carrick. It is at Langley and Oliver, two closing schools. The program is not in place at Westinghouse or U-Prep since in Otuwa's words, they "do not want competing programs." (???????) Perry started this year and Otuwa stated that it was "going very well." Otuwa said they were looking for teachers. Currently, there are only two African American PRC teachers. Very disappointing presentation.

Check the PPS website for the Power Point handout. It should be posted there today.

Anonymous said...

There is no PRC team at Perry this year. There was one in place for the 2010-2011 year, but when the career ladder positions were put into place for the 2011-2012 year Perry was not staffed. Of course there are still ninth grade teacher, just not as part of any "team".

Anonymous said...

11:48 - Someone needs to let Otuwa know.

She stated that it (PRC) "started this year at Perry" and that it was "going very well."

These are direct quotes.

(The word "team" was not used. What is the difference between a "team" and the "ninth grade teacher" that you mention? Is the 9th grade teacher a part of the Promise-Readiness Corps (PRC)?

Anonymous said...

PRC puts together teams of 9th grade teachers. These PRC team teachers meet twice a day to discuss students in their team and work to improve performance. They also attend ninth grade events, service projects and more. These teachers are also paid more because of these duties. Each school has a number of teams based on population. For instance, Allderdice has three teams because they have such a big ninth grade class.
A ninth grade teacher teaches a majority ninth grade classes, but does not participate in the extra duties. They are paid their normal salary.
Perry has ninth grade teachers this year, but they do not do the extra work or get paid more.

Anonymous said...

Ninth grade teachers at Perry most certainly DO take part in the "extra work". They attend grade level meetings with other ninth grade teachers, participate in DAILY professional development, attend service projects, ninth grade field trips, etc. They do NOT, however, get paid for it. Why? Because Otuwa stood in front of the PRC team at Perry last year and said that there were not enough "highly qualified teachers" from Perry who had applied for the PRC team; therefore, they would not be staffing one at Perry. Keep in mind that at LEAST eight teachers from Perry DID apply--teachers with tons of experience and proven track records. None of that mattered. They did NOT staff a PRC for this year. It's truly twisted the way they have handled the faculty at Perry--dedicated, honest and hard working teachers who put in tons of extra hours and go above and beyond for their students.

Anonymous said...

Do not blame admistration,blame the teachers at perry who are not doing there job .Thats what it boils down to

Anonymous said...

I did not mean to offend any teacher in any building. I thought I was responding to a person asking for the difference between the two groups of teachers. I know first hand the work we all do when we teach ninth grade, regardless of pay. I am also aware of the sham of "selection" for the career ladder postitions, first hand. Many people last year, and this year as well, applied and were not chosen. When we asked for reasons why we were not chosen, HR said that they do not reveal the observer/interviewer rubrics. Transparency at its best.

Anonymous said...

Teachers at Perry not doing their jobs? Care to elaborate? Those are some strong allegations! Sounds and smells like PPS BOE admin trolling. Please--you're posting anonymously and STILL fail to provide details? I'll take that for what it's worth--not the time it took to read it.

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:55--your lack of understanding regarding the use of "they're", "their" and "there" speaks for itself. If you want to be taken seriously, learn the language. Additionally, if you had been a Perry student, you would not have made that mistake--those students know better due to the EFFECTIVE teaching going on in that building.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:13 yes I was a student at perry and if a teacher did not like you you were lost they do not care and if you were not a teachers pet for get about any help .Teachers at perry are more worried about there affairs with with each other then to teach.I saw an argument between to teacher's and one said to the other I don't care if they here me(meaning) students .so you don't know every thing about what's going on at perry .some care ,most don't

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:58 am. Your post brought a smile to my face. Whilst I cannot speak directly to anything at Perry High School, I have had the opportunity to be a faculty member at three other institutions in the Pittsburgh Public Schools. Your comments would apply to any one of those schools and certainly to any school in the country. When men and women are brought together in a highly combustible and stressful environment, a conflagration of fireworks is inevitable. I wish you luck in your future endeavors and wish to assure you that with age comes experience that will give you a more universal perspective.

Sincerely,
An old worn out full of wisdom former teacher

Anonymous said...

What is it about Pittsburgh Public Schools that leaves students feeling so forlorn and discouraged and teachers feeling so "old and worn out"?

Let's hope for a more "universal perspective."

Anonymous said...

See above thread-- "teachers displaced"-- I have never seen morale so low either-- unlike other districts who are aware that you get the best work out of people when they
are happy-- PPS has worked for 4 years to destroy education for students and teachers. These are your CHILDREN Pittsburgh! Why do you allow their primary daily contact to be with totally miserable people? Sorry, I like teachers who really look like they are loving the journey of learning.
Remember when kids would look at a teacher and say- Are you having fun- cause we are! (Usually at the completion of a challenging creative project. Yes, those were the days!