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.
Don't we all feel better now? The message is that even school board members are people of integrity, especially in light of the Rooney debacle. What a great group of people.
The PPs Board minutes have been up since early this morning September 27th.
There should have been a blog entry regarding the race relations and equity. They are looking to Harvard University in regards to employing Data Members.
People need to read very closely the Human Relations Commission and the Board of Education's compliance sections. A very good read.
As for Board members having clearances-they must have had them to go in and visit our schools as guests. So that should be no problem. I am shocked they must give their financial disclosures to the Board-but they are elected and it is required for running as a candidate to run for all elected position.
As I purviewed the minutes, I never as a parent go through the HR Section with much effort-but did today.
Amazing, how they have terminations of Professional employees listed in Depth as Adde dumns A-E.
Another blog entry mentioned Shelia May-Stein as a Librarian-she is listed as a substitute teacher at $100 a day. Why I noticed, one of my son's former teachers was furlooughed and listed as a a day to day sub at $131.
There is a list of Workforce Reducation Teachers and significant movement-who is in charge of this?
One of my children's former teacher assistant is now A Data professional in the school office.
In addition to Dr. Lane, there is Dr. French, Dr. Otuwa, Mr. May-Stein and Dr. Rudiak who is expected to retire at the end of the semester. Now the question is what exactly is Dr. Rudiak doing for her $130,000 salary since she is no longer assigned to supervise any group of schools? It appears that she has been assigned to assist Lincoln Elementary for days on end since the beginning of this school year walking the halls and helping out in the cafe for lunch duty. It seems that the taxpayers are paying out big bucks toward Dr. Rudiak's salary until she actually retires.
Don't get caught up in titles, like "Assistant Superintendents" and the like.
For example, the PPS has many people working as Directors of this, or Directors of that.
Those people are essentially Assistant Superintendents.
What really matters here is how many people are working in central administration - in other words, how many people working who do not have direct, daily contact with students.
Did you forget Hill and Burgess who sit with Ripper, Rudiak, Otuwa and May-Stein. Conley and Mike are also required to attend Legislative Meetings. That's about 13 women and 1 man who are the ranking educators at central office.
I think I get it now. No cuts needed to admin because one-by-one retirements will occur and duties will be folded in to other administrators. Possible?
Why is Brentley pushing this clearance legislation? Watching him in action for all these years I've seen a political, racial agenda motivating his concerns. What's the back story? Also, his open hostility towards Isler is over the top lately and I think this has gotten to such a personal level that it is harming the work of the PPS. I wish someone would mediate this exteme acrimony.
I have a question regarding qualifications listed for Ripper's vacant opening listed on PPS. It is very vague, I don't think there is a lot of education experience required. Here are the qualification "Candidate must be enthusiastic about the fundamental goal of advancing student achievement in an urban public school district. We are a hard working team focused on results and expect the pursuit of excellence in all aspects of the organization. In addition, we are seeking candidates with the following educational and experience requirements and knowledge, skills, and abilities: • Certification and experience requirements: Pennsylvania Letter of Eligibility is required. A minimum of 5 years management experience preferred. Knowledge, skills, and abilities: People Leader who can lead, grow and develop staff; Ability to work cross-functionally...*. *rest on website.
What is a Pennsylvania letter of eligibility? Is that an educational accredidation?
"While I love reading the little tidbits that folks post on here about the District and everything that seems to be going on unbeknownst to the rest of us out here, at times (more frequently than usual recently), I come across a post where the "facts" the blogger is putting out there are not completely accurate... Do not interpret that as me "picking on" anybody, but just doing what I feel is appropriate, and chiming in to give accurate information when I see something I know is not totally accurate. Under recent amendments to the Pennsylvania School Code of 1949, the criteria for which you have listed in order for an individual to be eligible for a Superintendent's Letter of Eligibility, are no longer applicable in as there are a set of "alternative guidelines," which the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) issued in late October of last year. While these alternative guidelines were specifically designed to benefit financially distressed school district in the Commonwealth, not specifically, but including Philadelphia, other school districts across the Commonwealth may also elect Superintendents and Assistant Superintendents using the same criteria. A set of alternative guidelines also exists for Administrative Certification for Principal K-12 as well. As it relates to the new Commission Process for Letter of Eligibility, the following guidelines apply: "PDE will issue a Commission to serve in a particular school district to an applicant who: 1. Holds a graduate degree from an accredited higher education institution in business, finance, or management. 2. Provides evidence of four years of relevant work experience in business, finance, or management in the fields of business, industry or education. 3. Provides evidence of approval by the school board of the hiring entity. 4. Be a person of Good Moral Character as required by 24 P.S. §10-1002. 5. Completes upon appointment as a superintendent or assistant superintendent for the first time in this Commonwealth, a Leadership Development Program that meets the Pennsylvania School Leadership Standards under section 1217, such as the Pennsylvania Inspired Leadership Induction Program, within the duration of the initial contract term."
Seems to me things started to go south about the time alternative guideleines opened doors for superintendency.
That there are now a set of alternative guidelines for principals K-12 is disturbing. We talk about career paths? What a bunch of hooey!! Some fine VP's could be overlooked for principalships in favor of someone with what? management experience?
3:46Pm This has already happened in Pittsburgh. The PELA program locked out VP's from a principalship in favor of a 1 year PELA with no administrative experience. It even ensured the demotion of VP's to teacher because of a glut of PELA's with no building to send them to. Instead they became known as Directors aka VP's! So much for working your way up the system as a proven employee.
The PPS system has been invaded by dozens of bright young men and women who have just begun to learn bits and pieces of what is absolutely necessary to be successful in a District like PPS.
And yet someone has given them the impression that they are "experts" who are arrogantly capable of leading PPS to success when ALL of the evidence points to the contrary!
They (the bright, young "experts") speak with patience and condescension to true, experienced, expert educators who have learned the system from the bottom up, with depth of knowledge, integrity, and real commitment to educating urban children.
Unfortunately, the Board, the community, and the city's "movers, shakers, foundations, & politicos have been completely "snowed" to the extent that even with the stark reality and results before them, they refused to acknowledge the disaster that PPS has become.
11:25 you are absolutely correct. Dr. Lippert herself often points out in district meetings the "groundbreaking" work that is taking place at the King and Brashear teaching institutes centered on "Culturally Responsive Pedagogy Techniques" even going so far as to encourage everyone to utilize these institutes as resources. However in the recent post gazette article which lists school scores, the AA scores in these institutes that have "model" practices have actually declined by 3.0% at King and 4.8% at Brashear in Reading from 2011-2012. Also by 7.8% at King and 13.8% at Brashear in Math from 2011 to 2012. These numbers are clearly outlined by the charts that accompanied the September 14, 2012 PSSA results article in the Post-Gazette. So the question is WHY do these schools get constant praise for the "Culturally Responsive Pedagogy" they are implementing - seems to me that if the data clearly points to contrary results - why would one want to focus on these schools and tout them as "models" of the district? While other schools show significant growth in reading or math and specifically South Brook showing it in both reading and Math for their AA population? Why are they not utilized as models? Talk about "spinning" of information! But the data doesn't lie...
29 comments:
Don't we all feel better now? The message is that even school board members are people of integrity, especially in light of the Rooney debacle.
What a great group of people.
They didn't need clearance before? That is surprising.
The PPs Board minutes have been up since early this morning
September 27th.
There should have been a blog entry regarding the race relations and equity. They are looking to Harvard University in regards to employing Data Members.
People need to read very closely the Human Relations Commission and the Board of Education's compliance sections. A very good read.
As for Board members having clearances-they must have had them to go in and visit our schools as guests. So that should be no problem. I am shocked they must give their financial disclosures to the Board-but they are elected and it is required for running as a candidate to run for all elected position.
As I purviewed the minutes, I never as a parent go through the HR Section with much effort-but did today.
Amazing, how they have terminations of Professional employees listed in Depth as Adde dumns A-E.
Another blog entry mentioned Shelia May-Stein as a Librarian-she is listed as a substitute teacher at $100 a day. Why I noticed, one of my son's former teachers was furlooughed and listed as a a day to day sub at $131.
There is a list of Workforce Reducation Teachers and significant movement-who is in charge of this?
One of my children's former teacher assistant is now A Data professional in the school office.
I placed a comment here under this blog entry hours ago about the Board minutes. Where is it as a post?
A concerned parent.
Is it there now? The moderator was not available for several hours.
Sorry, it was this afternoon regarding specfics of last night's Board Minutes that are posted on the web site.
Ny blog entry disappear when submitted when entered?
Found it, should be there now.
Sheila May-Stein is married to David May-Stein, an assistant superintendent.
How many "Assistant Superintendents" does PPS have? Can someone list them?
It would be interesting to compare the central office staff to other districts.
And, has anyone tested the board policy of nepotism with all those assistants, directors, chiefs, etc?
In addition to Dr. Lane, there is Dr. French, Dr. Otuwa, Mr. May-Stein and Dr. Rudiak who is expected to retire at the end of the semester. Now the question is what exactly is Dr. Rudiak doing for her $130,000 salary since she is no longer assigned to supervise any group of schools? It appears that she has been assigned to assist Lincoln Elementary for days on end since the beginning of this school year walking the halls and helping out in the cafe for lunch duty. It seems that the taxpayers are paying out big bucks toward Dr. Rudiak's salary until she actually retires.
Don't get caught up in titles, like "Assistant Superintendents" and the like.
For example, the PPS has many people working as Directors of this, or Directors of that.
Those people are essentially Assistant Superintendents.
What really matters here is how many people are working in central administration - in other words, how many people working who do not have direct, daily contact with students.
Lippert?
Consider those who sit AT the Legislative table, since the Assistant Superintendents DO NOT.
These people are on a higher scale, such as Poncelet, Fischetti, Spolar, Lippert, French.
Rudiak, May-Stein, Otuwa, Ripper, Taliaferro (just retired) do NOT have seats at the Legislative table.
Did you forget Hill and Burgess who sit with Ripper, Rudiak, Otuwa and May-Stein. Conley and Mike are also required to attend Legislative Meetings. That's about 13 women and 1 man who are the ranking educators at central office.
Ripper is retiring also.
I think I get it now. No cuts needed to admin because one-by-one retirements will occur and duties will be folded in to other administrators. Possible?
Ripper's job is posted.
Why is Brentley pushing this clearance legislation? Watching him in action for all these years I've seen a political, racial agenda motivating his concerns. What's the back story?
Also, his open hostility towards Isler is over the top lately and I think this has gotten to such a personal level that it is harming the work of the PPS. I wish someone would mediate this exteme acrimony.
Perhaps you've noticed Isler's acrimony and condescension over the years?
Isler has a lot of power and can be a sneaky bully. He always seems so smug.
I have a question regarding qualifications listed for Ripper's vacant opening listed on PPS. It is very vague, I don't think there is a lot of education experience required. Here are the qualification "Candidate must be enthusiastic about the fundamental goal of advancing student achievement in an urban public school district. We are a hard working team focused on results and expect the pursuit of excellence in all aspects of the organization. In addition, we are seeking candidates with the following educational and experience requirements and knowledge, skills, and abilities:
• Certification and experience requirements: Pennsylvania Letter of Eligibility is required. A minimum of 5 years management experience preferred.
Knowledge, skills, and abilities: People Leader who can lead, grow and develop staff; Ability to work cross-functionally...*. *rest on website.
What is a Pennsylvania letter of eligibility? Is that an educational accredidation?
Sorry if this is in the wrong thread.
It looks like the letter of eligibility could apply to a Broad graduate. I found this response (below in quotes) on the following thread in Philly.
http://thenotebook.org/blog/124961/src-announces-two-superintendent-finalists-only-identifies-one
Post dated 6/33/12
"While I love reading the little tidbits that folks post on here about the District and everything that seems to be going on unbeknownst to the rest of us out here, at times (more frequently than usual recently), I come across a post where the "facts" the blogger is putting out there are not completely accurate... Do not interpret that as me "picking on" anybody, but just doing what I feel is appropriate, and chiming in to give accurate information when I see something I know is not totally accurate.
Under recent amendments to the Pennsylvania School Code of 1949, the criteria for which you have listed in order for an individual to be eligible for a Superintendent's Letter of Eligibility, are no longer applicable in as there are a set of "alternative guidelines," which the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) issued in late October of last year. While these alternative guidelines were specifically designed to benefit financially distressed school district in the Commonwealth, not specifically, but including Philadelphia, other school districts across the Commonwealth may also elect Superintendents and Assistant Superintendents using the same criteria. A set of alternative guidelines also exists for Administrative Certification for Principal K-12 as well.
As it relates to the new Commission Process for Letter of Eligibility, the following guidelines apply:
"PDE will issue a Commission to serve in a particular school district to an applicant who:
1. Holds a graduate degree from an accredited higher education institution in business, finance, or management.
2. Provides evidence of four years of relevant work experience in business, finance, or management in the fields of business, industry or education.
3. Provides evidence of approval by the school board of the hiring entity.
4. Be a person of Good Moral Character as required by 24 P.S. §10-1002.
5. Completes upon appointment as a superintendent or assistant superintendent for the first time in this Commonwealth, a Leadership Development Program that meets the Pennsylvania School Leadership Standards under section 1217, such as the Pennsylvania Inspired Leadership Induction Program, within the duration of the initial contract term."
Seems to me things started to go south about the time alternative guideleines opened doors for superintendency.
That there are now a set of alternative guidelines for principals K-12 is disturbing. We talk about career paths? What a bunch of hooey!! Some fine VP's could be overlooked for principalships in favor of someone with what? management experience?
3:46Pm This has already happened in Pittsburgh. The PELA program locked out VP's from a principalship in favor of a 1 year PELA with no administrative experience. It even ensured the demotion of VP's to teacher because of a glut of PELA's with no building to send them to. Instead they became known as Directors aka VP's! So much for working your way up the system as a proven employee.
The PPS system has been invaded by dozens of bright young men and women who have just begun to learn bits and pieces of what is absolutely necessary to be successful in a District like PPS.
And yet someone has given them the impression that they are "experts" who are arrogantly capable of leading PPS to success when ALL of the evidence points to the contrary!
They (the bright, young "experts") speak with patience and condescension to true, experienced, expert educators who have learned the system from the bottom up, with depth of knowledge, integrity, and real commitment to educating urban children.
Unfortunately, the Board, the community, and the city's "movers, shakers, foundations, & politicos have been completely "snowed" to the extent that even with the stark reality and results before them, they refused to acknowledge the disaster that PPS has become.
11:25 you are absolutely correct. Dr. Lippert herself often points out in district meetings the "groundbreaking" work that is taking place at the King and Brashear teaching institutes centered on "Culturally Responsive Pedagogy Techniques" even going so far as to encourage everyone to utilize these institutes as resources. However in the recent post gazette article which lists school scores, the AA scores in these institutes that have "model" practices have actually declined by 3.0% at King and 4.8% at Brashear in Reading from 2011-2012. Also by 7.8% at King and 13.8% at Brashear in Math from 2011 to 2012. These numbers are clearly outlined by the charts that accompanied the September 14, 2012 PSSA results article in the Post-Gazette. So the question is WHY do these schools get constant praise for the "Culturally Responsive Pedagogy" they are implementing - seems to me that if the data clearly points to contrary results - why would one want to focus on these schools and tout them as "models" of the district? While other schools show significant growth in reading or math and specifically South Brook showing it in both reading and Math for their AA population? Why are they not utilized as models? Talk about "spinning" of information! But the data doesn't lie...
I hope that Dr. Lane is reading this...:) I guess she thinks that the average person can't see between her lies but we can.
Dr. Lane says that she knows about this site; but she also says that she does NOT read the posts.
Post a Comment