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.
"The idea behind Clayton is to remove students whose behavior prevents other students from learning in their home schools, give them the supports they need to learn to behave and do well at Clayton and then return them to their home schools."
This is another of those times when the PG really needs to dig deeper. HAVE disruptive students been removed from the classroom? Are classrooms noticeably improved compared to the way they were before Clayton? Is it true that students with an IEP cannot be sent to Clayton, and if so, does that greatly reduce the number of disruptive students eligible for Clayton? Is there a better solution? And what specific arrangements are being made for the company running Clayton to train regular PPS staff so that the district can provide an alternative setting more economically in the future?
As an interested parent I used to have some knowledge of Clayton's purpose and operating procedures. The school has somehow gone under the radar for me, either because I don't know any kids there now or have not witnessed a distraught parent make a statement about how it was going for their kid. I do know they never reached the expected enrollment. Is there anyone who would consider Clayton a win for pps?
4 comments:
From the article:
"The idea behind Clayton is to remove students whose behavior prevents other students from learning in their home schools, give them the supports they need to learn to behave and do well at Clayton and then return them to their home schools."
This is another of those times when the PG really needs to dig deeper. HAVE disruptive students been removed from the classroom? Are classrooms noticeably improved compared to the way they were before Clayton? Is it true that students with an IEP cannot be sent to Clayton, and if so, does that greatly reduce the number of disruptive students eligible for Clayton? Is there a better solution? And what specific arrangements are being made for the company running Clayton to train regular PPS staff so that the district can provide an alternative setting more economically in the future?
As an interested parent I used to have some knowledge of Clayton's purpose and operating procedures. The school has somehow gone under the radar for me, either because I don't know any kids there now or have not witnessed a distraught parent make a statement about how it was going for their kid. I do know they never reached the expected enrollment.
Is there anyone who would consider Clayton a win for pps?
Is Howard Bullard still the principal there? I know he is the athletic director at Sto-Rox.
What about PPS Student Achievement Center (used to be Letsche)? Isn't that an alternative school run by the district and staffed with PFT staff.
Post a Comment