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.
Some parts of the article are confusing. For example, after the grant runs out does the district have to always keep differentiating compensation, and on what basis? Was the change from a growth model to a proficiency model planned or decided after the fact? Are the Westinghouse and Faison principals receiving bonuses based on progress at their prior schools? Didn't those principals change before the start of the 2011-12 school year?
This is yet another of the ultimately unsustainable initiatives of the Roosevelt/Lane/Fischetti/Weiss administration.
It was a nice ride while the grant lasted for research consultants that made mad money creating Colonel's secret recipe formulas that significantly boosted administrative salaries while federal money was flowing.
Instead of taking what used to be percentage raises and making that the pool of available money - that would have been net-zero - this house of cards fell down and Eleanor's not brazen enough to call them on it.
It really is not Eleanor's job to call the district on it, is it? As far as unsustainable, those who want to launch these programs better move back to reality from LaLa Land and not go after grants that have so many long term implications.
Yes, it used to be the job of the press to follow the paths of public money and report the facts!
Most people in this city get all of their information about the school district from the PG. If that's pretty much all you know from the last 5-6 years, you have a very skewed view.
As far as you know the district took in all sorts of extra money, seemed to have raised performance, and did money-saving things like close schools and try to "keep good young teachers" while getting rid of bad old ones.
Since the advent of the Broad Gates era here (and the formation of A+ schools to provide cover for "community engagement" and keep foundation money happy)it has been nearly impossible to know what's going on in the schools and how money is spent by reading the newspaper.
This is a very small town. Few can really tell us what is going on in the schools with the worry of backlash all the time. Even retirees often have relatives or close friends that they have to worry about harming professionally by association.
This is a travesty - Everyone knows that Faison's and Westinghouse's scores went down from the previous year - However - on PA AYP website, there is now no longer information regarding last year's data. Did the state now consider these new schools for this year because new models were implemented? It is ridiculous that these two school's get rewarded, while there were many others that show growth according to the public PVAAS site. Look closely people - it's all smoke, mirrors, and deception...
Also I did hear that Westinghouse is STILL chaotic-no one knows anything is always the answer--those students had SO much more priorto this regime and deserve more now!
they get bonuses also if they keep suspensions down.The kids are out of controll and the know the will not get suspended.what does a call home do nothing
I found it interesting that of the top bonus principals mentioned all but two of those identified are old school principals. If the PELA program was such a great success, then why are we seeing a decline in the percentage of students meeting proficiency targets? Central Office still doesn't get that for schools to be effective, they have to be safe and orderly. The PELA's have not been schooled in the art of basic school management. Learning cannot take place when the environment is chaotic.
I worked for an old school principal then a PELA. The difference was night and day. The old school principal's experience, command for operating a school, establishing behavior expectations, knowledge of pedagogy, how to interpreting data and provide a prescription for improvement one student at a time was second nature to this leader. There's not a PELA in the system who could match her level of leadership.
Until our schools have principals who know how to lead and Central Administrators who know how schools best operate for students, we will continue to see a decline in student performance and a steady loss of students to charters, private, religious, or suburban schools.
10 comments:
Some parts of the article are confusing. For example, after the grant runs out does the district have to always keep differentiating compensation, and on what basis? Was the change from a growth model to a proficiency model planned or decided after the fact? Are the Westinghouse and Faison principals receiving bonuses based on progress at their prior schools? Didn't those principals change before the start of the 2011-12 school year?
This is yet another of the ultimately unsustainable initiatives of the Roosevelt/Lane/Fischetti/Weiss administration.
It was a nice ride while the grant lasted for research consultants that made mad money creating Colonel's secret recipe formulas that significantly boosted administrative salaries while federal money was flowing.
Instead of taking what used to be percentage raises and making that the pool of available money - that would have been net-zero - this house of cards fell down and Eleanor's not brazen enough to call them on it.
It really is not Eleanor's job to call the district on it, is it? As far as unsustainable, those who want to launch these programs better move back to reality from LaLa Land and not go after grants that have so many long term implications.
Yes, it used to be the job of the press to follow the paths of public money and report the facts!
Most people in this city get all of their information about the school district from the PG. If that's pretty much all you know from the last 5-6 years, you have a very skewed view.
As far as you know the district took in all sorts of extra money, seemed to have raised performance, and did money-saving things like close schools and try to "keep good young teachers" while getting rid of bad old ones.
Since the advent of the Broad Gates era here (and the formation of A+ schools to provide cover for "community engagement" and keep foundation money happy)it has been nearly impossible to know what's going on in the schools and how money is spent by reading the newspaper.
This is a very small town. Few can really tell us what is going on in the schools with the worry of backlash all the time. Even retirees often have relatives or close friends that they have to worry about harming professionally by association.
This is a travesty - Everyone knows that Faison's and Westinghouse's scores went down from the previous year - However - on PA AYP website, there is now no longer information regarding last year's data. Did the state now consider these new schools for this year because new models were implemented? It is ridiculous that these two school's get rewarded, while there were many others that show growth according to the public PVAAS site. Look closely people - it's all smoke, mirrors, and deception...
Also I did hear that Westinghouse is STILL chaotic-no one knows anything is always the answer--those students had SO much more priorto this regime and deserve more now!
they get bonuses also if they keep suspensions down.The kids are out of controll and the know the will not get suspended.what does a call home do nothing
I found it interesting that of the top bonus principals mentioned all but two of those identified are old school principals. If the PELA program was such a great success, then why are we seeing a decline in the percentage of students meeting proficiency targets? Central Office still doesn't get that for schools to be effective, they have to be safe and orderly. The PELA's have not been schooled in the art of basic school management. Learning cannot take place when the environment is chaotic.
I worked for an old school principal then a PELA. The difference was night and day. The old school principal's experience, command for operating a school, establishing behavior expectations, knowledge of pedagogy, how to interpreting data and provide a prescription for improvement one student at a time was second nature to this leader. There's not a PELA in the system who could match her level of leadership.
Until our schools have principals who know how to lead and Central Administrators who know how schools best operate for students, we will continue to see a decline in student performance and a steady loss of students to charters, private, religious, or suburban schools.
Where is the continuity between the star schools and bonuses for principals? Should all of these "multiple measures" have some type of consistency?
Post a Comment