Sunday, December 9, 2012

Pps responses to state of the district questions

New post please:

Here is a link to the District answers to questions asked at the State of the District. You have to open several PDF's so it's not very convenient. 


Anonymous said...

PPS should thank PURE for publicizing the existence of the responses to the questions.

Somebody did a good job in providing this followup. Years ago it was not unusual for someone from district to commit to getting answers to outstanding questions and then there was no follow through. Some of the answers were predictable and all too familiar but that the effort to get back to people was made is worth congratualtions.

Anonymous said...

Dear Dr. Lane,

Name one C level employee who was cut to save money. Gill does not count, he left during Roosevelt's tenure. Berdnik wasn't a cost saving replacement either he was anded 140k to leave quietly.

"Are C level executives a necessary ingredient in a shrinking District? Central staff cuts were big but no executives? Why?
The decision to make workforce reductions at any level requires a thoughtful approach that examines current staff responsibilities and core District functions. In June 2011, Central Office cut 217 positions, resulting in 147 staff furloughs/layoffs at all levels of the organization. This decreased the District’s funding gap by $11 million annually. All Central Office Departments experienced significant staff reductions. Among the positions eliminated were more than a dozen senior level positions, including C level roles."

Mark Rauterkus said...

... a planning process that will
challenge (us all) to think
differently ... in light of continued enrollment decline, increased costs, flat revenue projections and strong support for more school choice...


The thing that sinks my heart is the "continued enrollment decline." They seem to think "continued enrollment decline = gravity."

Or, "continued enrollment decline = urban school district."

I don't want a PLAN that counts on "continued enrollment decline."

Screw that philosophy.

Sure there is that old saying, "Those that fail to plan plan to fail." But, what PPS seems to want to do is "plan for continued enrollment decline." That might as well be "Plan to fail and fail with grace."

We need to build a robust school district that families enjoy and citizens respect and students never depart unless they have a diploma.

Anonymous said...

"I don't want a PLAN that counts on "continued enrollment decline."

You are thinking logically, that does not work anymore. Please read "The Life and Death of the American School System" by Diane Ravich. She also has a great blog.

You will begin understand the planned insanity of this travesty. Pittsburgh is just one small piece of taxes diverted to private companies. Scary thing is we are still in the early stages.

Anonymous said...

Continued enrollment decline? What about the Pittsburgh Promise? Didn't we have consultants from McKinsey tell us this was going to save the school district?

I guess this is Lane et al finally admitting that their analysis wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.

Despite the erroneous fluff peddled by McKinsey, the Roosevelt/LaneFischetti/Weiss administration made sure they got they paid well with the Gates' work, and again personally for consultant Greg Bell, who registered his firm - Two Bell LLC - to business in the Commonwealth the very same day he began a lucrative three month engagement (wasn't it roughly $60,000 per month????).

Anonymous said...

Over at his blog, mark rauterkus is commenting on answers to some of the questions contained in the link.

Anonymous said...

Pure Reform should issue its own State of the District.