Topic: what is better, in the eyes of PPS
In the eyes of PPS, is it better to have more or fewer students?
Is it better to manage decline or growth?
Then,
if a student is not enrolled in PPS, is it better to have the student
in a home school, a private, or Catholic, or special, or else a charter
school?
What option is less of an impact?
11 comments:
Generally each Fall the PG does an article on PPS enrollment, whether it is up or down and by how much; was an article done this past Fall?
There was this recent article, PPS grants a charter to Propel for Hazelwood; remember when Mark Roosevelt closed Burgwin the community strongly protested about the need for a school in their neighborhood and the response was that enrollment could not support a school.
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-city/pittsburgh-public-schools-recommends-granting-hazelwood-charter-school-request-670645/
Last week's Trib stated that PPS had a total enrollment 24,849.
It also stated that there were 3,414 in Charters which was up just short of 1,000 from 2009 when Charter enrollment was 2,420.
The current cost for Charters was stated at (52 million)$52,000,000.
I think it might have been Dr. Lippert at agenda review who said something about pps needing to think of itself as a district of 27,000 students not one of 24,000 which makes sense since the district is the primary or sole funding source for the charters inside the city. During the questioning of a member of the review team for the Propel school proposed for Hazelwood
it was mentioned that the plan passed on 7 of 9 criteria. Don't be so sure that despite the committee's recommendation that the application will be approved via vote this week. At the very least I do not expect a 7/2 split.
The precedent for approving Propel Charters in PPS has been set with . Other similar proposals for Hazelwood were rejected. It does raise issues about why? Holley and Brentley raised some of the issues that should be explored in depth. Paranoia aside, there are reasons(not to be questioned)that shed light upon why Propel proposal(s) are likely to be approved by Pittsburgh's Board.
Why can't PPS improve education, school by school, since the system approach has failed to the point that "Charters" have become the answer for involved parents who can't get their kids into CAPA, Sci-Tech, or Obama?
Many communities in PPS have already "envisioned" schools that project success for their kids; yet, are kept tightly under control of central office. Why?
Yes, 11:23, good question.
Makes you wonder what PPS has to lose (besides students and money) if they would allow some of Pittsburgh's communities re-invent some of the most seriously under-achieving schools in the state?
The management and academic results in some schools could not be worse. So why not let parents, community, students invest themselves in a school that will actually educate the children?
"Envisioning" by people from Seattle (who are NOT necessarily educators) for another one-size-fits-all reform for PPS seems broadly unwise, incomprehensible and impractical!
Or is this Seattle group going to "envision" individually for very different schools?
Can the community see the proposal that was submitted that is going to cost 2.4 million? How should such a request be made?
I have recently heard about 2 kids I know who have left cyber charter to go back to their assigned schools. Allegedly because they could not keep up. Dr. Lippert mentioned "blended learning" and a need for pps to have a more in depth understanding of it due to current unfamiliarity. From my little understanding of blended, pps should not be considering this for many years to come. Is it pseudo-cyber in some respects?
From personal experience, Catholic schools are ill-equiped to handle students with even minor challenges.
It would be nice to get an official answer to Mark's question.
I was wondering on a few different fronts. First of all, in the case of Schenley's building.
The Oakland location of Schenley, and its long term use into the future could be:
-- a PPS school if they change the course of the sale / bid process.
-- a specialized other use owned by PPS, so as to retain the building for another day. Put in administration. Put in gifted offerings. Put in 9th Grade Nation. Put in troubled kids. A large variety exists.
That gets to the management of decline vs. the management of growth. To build a new school is way harder than to sell off an older asset. No room is way worse than too much room with leaking infrastructure, perhaps.
Then PPS could sell Schenley and it could be a private school.
Or, PPS could sell Schenley and it become a Charter School.
Or, PPS could sell Schenley and it be a special school. School for the Blind is near to Schenley. Dyslexic kids may go there if one bid works out.
So many options. So few understandings of the cost:benefits and associated analysis. Dizziness.
Next venture for me: reading the bid proposals for the Schenley Building. What is that URL?
Google Fourth River Development and click the Schenley link.
Could the vote on Propel for Hazelwood indicate that the district thinks charter is the biggest competition? Or, possibly that the board was remiss in granting some previous charters when all criteria was not met?
Propel has the citywide political support, but the loss of 52 million to Charters is daunting.
Frankly, we will continue to lose students to Charter of any type until the education in city schools improves substantially, not the 2 or 3 pts. each year that leaves further and further behind as other districts move 10 pts, or more, for the last ten years.
We desperately need educational leaders in central office, leaders who do not rely solely on consultants (who have no understanding nor vested interest in PPS). With another 2.4 million approved last week for consultants, we are handing the district over to Charters. And Propel IS Pittsburgh, so they, at least, bring local commitment to their efforts.
Post a Comment