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.
Why are some of the school board members the only elected officials trying to hurry and sell the Schenley building?
Officials opposed or calling for review have included Jack Wagner, Michael Lamb, Barbara Danko, Jim Ferlo, Bill Robinson, Daniel Lavelle, Mark Brentley, Regina Holley and Tom Sumpter. Even Bill Peduto is at least explaining his lack of effort on behalf of the building as a Pittsburgh public school by saying that school board members want to sell it.
Sell it already. PPS does not have the student population to support all of this infrastructure. We can not manage this didtrict on sentimental value. Just sayin.
Pittsburgh has definitely been losing enrollment to charters- the actual school age population is holding pretty well- but why sell schenley rather than Peabody? Is there any real question about which is here better property for our students?
And how and why have these decisions been made over the last 6 years, if there is, as they seem to have admitted with the latest consultants, NO IDEA of where they are heading?
Many of the parents initially opposed to closing Schenley became more upset by the lack of planning, lack of desire to create a coherent 5 and 10 year plan, etc.
The district should KNOW what will happen if population increases or decreases in their schools. They should KNOW which areas are losing school-age populations out of the PPS the fastest. They should KNOW what those people want and why they are leaving.
Right now it seems like they are just along for the ride, rather than having sense at all of a bigger picture.
9:42 Those in favor of a review of the Schenley building are pleased to have Mr. Lamb's thoughtful and well reasoned support for a cost-benefit analysis; we need some rationality. His request is based on new information that was not released until August and still barely covered by the media. Even now the PG and Trib continue to refer to an asbestos issue without mentioning the later finding that there is little asbestos after all.
Yes, 9:43, all of Central Office is just along for the ride, and enjoying it. And yes we see here lots of words to that effect; but does anyone truly realize how BAD it has become at every level. Everyone sees one or two areas that cause them great concern without seeing the whole system. PPS, as a system responsible for educating nearly 26,000 of our youth, is in trouble far, far, far beyond the comprehension of any one of us.
As is often the case, the same things we see happening in Pittsburgh are happening in other cities (no so much in smaller districts because the money isn't there).
There are complaints that schools closed in the name of "reform" are all too often in gentrifying areas and turned over to private developers. The main beneficiaries of reform are often the developers and related interests.
There could be some fine synergy with the IB School (Schenley) as well as U-Prep and Sci-Tech all in Oakland. One can make an easy walk between all three.
I'm still in favor of selling the Board of Education Building too.
The administration could move into extra space in a school building or three.
Can anyone provide any info on where magnet registration is this year in terms of applications? During agenda review Dr. Lane alluded to comprehensive school offerings and magnet programs in a way that makes me think there is even greater interest in magnets than ever.
On the thought of selling Peabody, shouldn't there be a North option for those who do not want to travel? Kids tell me that absenteeism is rising, is that due to going to almost all yellow bus and kids opting to just stay home when they get up late since they have no bus pass? Just one more thing to consider when the discussion begins about closing schools.
If they keep Peabody the North option is very limited; only kids who are willing and able to be in an IB program can go there. The kids contributing to rising absenteeism are not the ones who will be attending an IB program. Also by HS most kids are happy to get out of their neighborhood a little, especially to go somewhere with different opportunities like Oakland.
It seemed that before Roosevelt, most kids were happy to go to Schenley from all around the city-- according to friends' children- it was almost like being IN college- buses full of students etc. Also, many students from the south hills transferred at the junction- and yes sdome came late for legitimate4 reasons. Now even if you have a legitimate reason there is no way to get to school. It feels like yet another way to disrespect students struggling to make it work
why would the board sell schenley to a charter base program ,thats like putting a nail in there foot .Do they know they are our compatition.and how many more kids we will loose to charter schenley and pay for it.
Per an article in one of the papers the alums are leaning toward a private school. Pps could let the alums rent one floor and use the rest itself, if there is extra space.
Yes like most magnets the IB program has requirments to enter and remain in the program. Students with high enough GPAs tend to be those with excellent attendance. And the bar is set much higher than attendance.
Do you think attendance might be better there because it is a better place to be?
Do you think if the poorly attended schools were better managed, demonstrated respect for students and offered better programs (in academics, the arts, and athletics, etc.) attendance might improve?
Or is the concept of "high expectations" just myth?
It might, but in terms of the IB program the kids who apply and are accepted tend not to have an issue with attendance, and a centrally located school would offer the best opportunities for the greatest number of students.
Filling out the CAPA application & audition requirements, essay's etc was more complicated than I imagined it would be! I had to call the district & CAPA a few times to get it straight.
I have heard that some of the questions on applications are worded in ways that allows for different answers. The rigor and culture in magnets inspires better attendance for some of those who are grateful to have made the cut, so it is possible that the attendance requirement for admission should not be as big a factor as other considerations. What concerns me is that there seems to be an increase in interest in magnets in my community and a decrease in the positive comments I once heard from neighbors about our local non-magnet schools.
So, are we to understand that PPS can only teach those students from better situations, those who have parents who are equipped to make the applications and ensure attendance ahead of time?
Does that mean that close to 20 thousand kids in Pittsburgh do not have a chance at getting a good education?
In other words, its up to parents, NOT SCHOOLS to make sure their kids get an education?
8:32 am It's the responsibility of parents to ensure that their child attends school everyday ready to LEARN! Teachers cannot and should not be held accountabale for the learning of non-attenders. Unfortunately, these non-attenders scores are averaged into a teachers class score. How is that fair? Teachers can't teach ghosts yet when their VAM score is determined the scores of non-attenders who are present for the assessment become a part of the teacher's performance assessment. I suggest that students who are absent 15% or more of classroom learning time needs to be removed from a teachers class average score.
These are problems to be sure; but there are deeper problems contributing to the whole process as described. Students don't come when the curriculum, the content, the practices, and the success rates are less than relevant or less than conducive to effective/engaging student participation.
Any and all students will come to class when there is not a better place to be!
Not so because attending school is not just up to students. Younger students need parents to wake them up and get them to the bus stop or school. Older students may be pressed to care for siblings. Other difficulties at home can also intrude.
"And while there are such excuses and reasons, there are a far greater number of kids choosing not to come because school is not a good place for them."
Do you have ANY evidence of this at all? "A far greater number" no less?
Here are reasons that I know kids didn't come to school:
Transportation from shelter they were staying in when mother kicked them out didn't arrive. Repeatedly.
Kept trying to get sent home because was convinced that *this* was always going to be the day that the mom reappeared, after having left, telling kids they were the reason she was leaving. Wanted to come back after checking.
Babysitting several younger siblings.
Grandparent threatened to call cops on them and report threatening behavior on their parts if they didn't stop after school activities.
Warrant out for arrest.
But, yep, sure if you want to believe in most cases it's the teachers' fault for not having lessons SO fascinating and appealing that those kids would get there, well, then, you just believe that.
sorry, but lots of kids would play with Playstation, or as in older folks day -listening to music, watching TV- if they had that choice instead of school. School has to be a priority at home -- kids have "hooked school" since school began. They didnt get 50% on work they missedhe best curriculum in the world isnt gonna get some kids off the couch
If they've never attended, they are off the rolls. If they have attended they should want to come back, again and again. Teachers make that happen___or they don't.
The problem seems to be with students who attend just often enough to stay on the rolls but are absent a great deal, not necessarily by their own choice.
41 comments:
Why are some of the school board members the only elected officials trying to hurry and sell the Schenley building?
Officials opposed or calling for review have included Jack Wagner, Michael Lamb, Barbara Danko, Jim Ferlo, Bill Robinson, Daniel Lavelle, Mark Brentley, Regina Holley and Tom Sumpter. Even Bill Peduto is at least explaining his lack of effort on behalf of the building as a Pittsburgh public school by saying that school board members want to sell it.
Plus sharene shealey voted against the decision to accept bids, no word on her current position on the issue.
Sell it already. PPS does not have the student population to support all of this infrastructure. We can not manage this didtrict on sentimental value.
Just sayin.
Pittsburgh has definitely been losing enrollment to charters- the actual school age population is holding pretty well- but why sell schenley rather than Peabody? Is there any real question about which is here better property for our students?
How was the reception of Lamb? Thanks for the support or oh, now all of a sudden?
And how and why have these decisions been made over the last 6 years, if there is, as they seem to have admitted with the latest consultants, NO IDEA of where they are heading?
Many of the parents initially opposed to closing Schenley became more upset by the lack of planning, lack of desire to create a coherent 5 and 10 year plan, etc.
The district should KNOW what will happen if population increases or decreases in their schools. They should KNOW which areas are losing school-age populations out of the PPS the fastest. They should KNOW what those people want and why they are leaving.
Right now it seems like they are just along for the ride, rather than having sense at all of a bigger picture.
9:42 Those in favor of a review of the Schenley building are pleased to have Mr. Lamb's thoughtful and well reasoned support for a cost-benefit analysis; we need some rationality. His request is based on new information that was not released until August and still barely covered by the media. Even now the PG and Trib continue to refer to an asbestos issue without mentioning the later finding that there is little asbestos after all.
Yes, 9:43, all of Central Office is just along for the ride, and enjoying it. And yes we see here lots of words to that effect; but does anyone truly realize how BAD it has become at every level. Everyone sees one or two areas that cause them great concern without seeing the whole system. PPS, as a system responsible for educating nearly 26,000 of our youth, is in trouble far, far, far beyond the comprehension of any one of us.
As is often the case, the same things we see happening in Pittsburgh are happening in other cities (no so much in smaller districts because the money isn't there).
There are complaints that schools closed in the name of "reform" are all too often in gentrifying areas and turned over to private developers. The main beneficiaries of reform are often the developers and related interests.
Additional public official supporting review: Amanda Green Hawkins, Alleg County Council.
There could be some fine synergy with the IB School (Schenley) as well as U-Prep and Sci-Tech all in Oakland. One can make an easy walk between all three.
I'm still in favor of selling the Board of Education Building too.
The administration could move into extra space in a school building or three.
The most cost efficient is probably to sell Peabody, sell the BOE building, and consolidate in centrally located Schenley.
Can anyone provide any info on where magnet registration is this year in terms of applications? During agenda review Dr. Lane alluded to comprehensive school offerings and magnet programs in a way that makes me think there is even greater interest in magnets than ever.
On the thought of selling Peabody, shouldn't there be a North option for those who do not want to travel? Kids tell me that absenteeism is rising, is that due to going to almost all yellow bus and kids opting to just stay home when they get up late since they have no bus pass? Just one more thing to consider when the discussion begins about closing schools.
If they keep Peabody the North option is very limited; only kids who are willing and able to be in an IB program can go there. The kids contributing to rising absenteeism are not the ones who will be attending an IB program. Also by HS most kids are happy to get out of their neighborhood a little, especially to go somewhere with different opportunities like Oakland.
It seemed that before Roosevelt, most kids were happy to go to Schenley from all around the city-- according to friends' children- it was almost like being IN college- buses full of students etc. Also, many students from the south hills transferred at the junction- and yes sdome came late for legitimate4 reasons. Now even if you have a legitimate reason there is no way to get to school.
It feels like yet another way to disrespect students struggling to make it work
With the signature of James Ellenbogen, all 4 Allegheny County Council members who live in the city have signed the petition.
why would the board sell schenley to a charter base program ,thats like putting a nail in there foot .Do they know they are our compatition.and how many more kids we will loose to charter schenley and pay for it.
Per an article in one of the papers the alums are leaning toward a private school. Pps could let the alums rent one floor and use the rest itself, if there is extra space.
Questioner, can you please explain your statement:
"The kids contributing to rising absenteeism are not the ones who will be attending an IB program."
Yes like most magnets the IB program has requirments to enter and remain in the program. Students with high enough GPAs tend to be those with excellent attendance. And the bar is set much higher than attendance.
Not only GPA, but I believe also attendance rates for magnets. So, yeah, high absenteeism means you won't be in a magnet.
Do you think attendance might be better there because it is a better place to be?
Do you think if the poorly attended schools were better managed, demonstrated respect for students and offered better programs (in academics, the arts, and athletics, etc.) attendance might improve?
Or is the concept of "high expectations" just myth?
Just asking . . .
. .
The simplest explanation really seems like clearest explanation.
Kids with poor attendance (less than 90% I think) CAN't stay at magnets.
Kids ARE kicked out if they cut school at magnets.
Many kids at schools with bad scores do have good attendance. They may or may not apply for magnet programs.
It might, but in terms of the IB program the kids who apply and are accepted tend not to have an issue with attendance, and a centrally located school would offer the best opportunities for the greatest number of students.
And also, parents who submit magnet applications are probably more likely to make attendance a priority.
Filling out the CAPA application & audition requirements, essay's etc was more complicated than I imagined it would be! I had to call the district & CAPA a few times to get it straight.
I have heard that some of the questions on applications are worded in ways that allows for different answers. The rigor and culture in magnets inspires better attendance for some of those who are grateful to have made the cut, so it is possible that the attendance requirement for admission should not be as big a factor as other considerations.
What concerns me is that there seems to be an increase in interest in magnets in my community and a decrease in the positive comments I once heard from neighbors about our local non-magnet schools.
So, are we to understand that PPS can only teach those students from better situations, those who have parents who are equipped to make the applications and ensure attendance ahead of time?
Does that mean that close to 20 thousand kids in Pittsburgh do not have a chance at getting a good education?
In other words, its up to parents, NOT SCHOOLS to make sure their kids get an education?
No, just that it he kids contributing to rising absenteeism tend not to be the ones who will attend an IB program.
8:32 am It's the responsibility of parents to ensure that their child attends school everyday ready to LEARN! Teachers cannot and should not be held accountabale for the learning of non-attenders. Unfortunately, these non-attenders scores are averaged into a teachers class score. How is that fair? Teachers can't teach ghosts yet when their VAM score is determined the scores of non-attenders who are present for the assessment become a part of the teacher's performance assessment. I suggest that students who are absent 15% or more of classroom learning time needs to be removed from a teachers class average score.
11:14's post is worth printing and keeping in a file for objections to RISE ratings based on VAM.
These are problems to be sure; but there are deeper problems contributing to the whole process as described. Students don't come when the curriculum, the content, the practices, and the success rates are less than relevant or less than conducive to effective/engaging student participation.
Any and all students will come to class when there is not a better place to be!
Not so because attending school is not just up to students. Younger students need parents to wake them up and get them to the bus stop or school. Older students may be pressed to care for siblings. Other difficulties at home can also intrude.
Of course, some will find lots of excuses or reasons--- all of which can and will be solved when we want them to be--enough.
And while there are such excuses and reasons, there are a far greater number of kids choosing not to come because school is not a good place for them.
So second graders choose not to come and parents say fine? Which k - 5 schools are not good places for children?
"And while there are such excuses and reasons, there are a far greater number of kids choosing not to come because school is not a good place for them."
Do you have ANY evidence of this at all? "A far greater number" no less?
Here are reasons that I know kids didn't come to school:
Transportation from shelter they were staying in when mother kicked them out didn't arrive. Repeatedly.
Kept trying to get sent home because was convinced that *this* was always going to be the day that the mom reappeared, after having left, telling kids they were the reason she was leaving. Wanted to come back after checking.
Babysitting several younger siblings.
Grandparent threatened to call cops on them and report threatening behavior on their parts if they didn't stop after school activities.
Warrant out for arrest.
But, yep, sure if you want to believe in most cases it's the teachers' fault for not having lessons SO fascinating and appealing that those kids would get there, well, then, you just believe that.
sorry, but lots of kids would play with Playstation, or as in older folks day -listening to music, watching TV- if they had that choice instead of school. School has to be a priority at home -- kids have "hooked school" since school began. They didnt get 50% on work they missedhe best curriculum in the world isnt gonna get some kids off the couch
Yes, teachers can change students lives. Many, unfortunately not all, do it every day!
Pf course, the students do need to attend school for this to happen.
If they've never attended, they are off the rolls. If they have attended they should want to come back, again and again. Teachers make that happen___or they don't.
The problem seems to be with students who attend just often enough to stay on the rolls but are absent a great deal, not necessarily by their own choice.
Post a Comment