Thursday, January 9, 2014

Clayton contract

On another post Anonymous wrote:

"new post:

Dara Ware Allen asks board to extend Clayton contract another year.
Contract calls for Clayton to have up to 250 students 6-12 at a cost of 2.8 million. They now have 227 students. Lane states that ultimately PPS would like to take over the program, but aren't ready yet. Allen says PPS could develop a comprehensive plan by next spring. Holley wants to keep our students in PPS. The Student Achievement Center has 198 students and can absorb the Clayton students.

Why not keep our students in PPS? How many years has Clayton been in existence? And now we are going to develop a "comprehensive" plan by spring?
How many Clayton students are "improved" and do return to their home schools? (Ware) Where are the statistics? Wouldn't we save money and teachers' jobs by using the SAC? Lane says not all teachers are suited for this type of student. I'm sure we do have teachers that can work with this type of student. Why does Lane generalize? I thought we were supposed to be looking for ways to save money?"



Anonymous said...

I don't believe Dr. Lane can tell a poor teacher from a great one. How can she when she blames the ill's of PPS on all teachers? Clayton has been around for some time now. Has PPS not been able to come up with it's own plan/program? How would it be different from the SAC now? I recall that at one time Clayton students wore a uniform. Do they do that now? Perhaps all SAC students could do that too. Do Calyton teachers have Rise, PELA'S and Broad administrators? Do they teach from a scripted lesson? Do Clayton students have the opportunity to discuss and solve the lesson through accountable talk? My guess is NO. And yet Dr. Lane is looking for a plan. Perhaps she should look at what PPS has instead of what it does not. Go back to the old ways. I am not confident that uniforms would help that much. Oh, I forgot, Gates, Broad would not like that approach.

Anonymous said...

Broad/Roosevelt/Lane are OBSESSED with the concept that everything we did prior to their arrival is wrong--how DARE she act as if our SAC teachers "cant deal with our students"-- newsflash lady-- all the things you have tried to do and failed-- WE DID in PPS before you and your carpetbaggers arrived. I am not associated with SAC at all-- but I know we have provided alternative education programs in this district for many many years-- without corporate input! There have always been students who didnt fit the traditional high school plan. All the way back in the 1920's we provided "continuation school" for those that needed to be taught outside of the norm. Again-- let's find a way to put down PPS teachers and bonus!-- line some corporate pockets!

Anonymous said...

Lane says PPS teachers not able to teach a Clayton student. Where did Clayton get it's teachers from? I am sure they were teachers looking for post retirement work and/or new graduates. She makes you believe they were teachers by day, prison guards by night. When Clayton first opened, Howard Bullard was the man in charge. How was he better? ((He was not a PELA or a Broad) Seems to me the only one here not qualified here is Lane. I am not so sure she can teach a dog to scratch!

Anonymous said...

I do know that other former PPS personnel besides Bullard worked at Clayton.

Anonymous said...

Was Clayton operated by the same company that operated Turner School in Wilkinsburg, If not, then who. Turner was operated by Jeremy Resnick's company. He is also the son of Judith Resnick from Pitt's LRC.

Anonymous said...

AGAIN, this needs several corrections: Turner School in Wilkinsburg was not operated by LRDC. Some of the contracted consultants in Wilkinsburg were from LRDC; but, primarily the Success for All Foundation out of Johns Hopkins through Robert Slavin determined the instructional program at Turner School. (This goes back more than 10-15 years.)

Jeremy Resnick's mother is Dr. Lauren Resnick who never owned a company; but was the top executive at LRDC (the University of Pittsburgh's Learning, Research and Development Center). She also led the New Standards initiative at the national level.

Jeremy Resnick is now the Executive for Propel Schools (a Charter School organization that has about ten charters in this region.) These charters must be approved by the Public School District where they are located. Previously, he was a teacher in Pittsburgh Public School teaching Math at Schenley.

Anonymous said...

Additionally, (not mentioned in the previous blog) Clayton is operated by "Success Schools" which has nothing to do with Propel Charter Schools NOR LRDC.

Success Schools is out of Philadelphia. The confusion could be caused by the word Success in each company title. However, "Success for All" is out of Baltimore and has NOTHING to do with Success Schools in Philadelphia.

Hope this eliminates any confusion!

Anonymous said...

Also, "Success for All" is the same entity that created the "4Sight" assessments, which unfortunately are still being used in some Pittsburgh Public Schools. Just as "Success for All" has not been successful in many district and perhaps marginally successful in a few, it has been definitively researched that "4Sight" Assessments (claimed to be a good predictor of student success on PSSA) has FAILED in the underachieving Pennsylvania Districts where it has been used. 4Sight was developed for national use and as such we have found that 30 to 40% of the PA standards are NOT assessed on the 4Sight Assessment. A few years back, PPS paid $149,000 dollars for consultants to do 7 days of training on using "4Sight". PPS and other districts egregiously waste taxpayers money by trying to latch on to what ANY sales pitch says will help them. Vendors, sales people, marketing geniuses should NOT be able to
sell this products to educators. It is the responsibility of Educators in school systems to KNOW more than salesmen!

Additionally, Superintendents, Administrators, and Educators must do the research before paying out such exorbitant sums to those outside of education to do their work for them. It seems that the more it costs, the more reliable it is deemed to be. This practice is frankly, outrageous!

Anonymous said...

The Education Committee meeting where Clayton is discussed is available for viewing on the pps website.

This website has proven to be a good source of answers and much more effective to use than waiting for a PSCC meeting or making a phone call.

At 35:00 class size is discussed. When determining district average class size, are small size special education classes factored in to the figure?

Anonymous said...

Class size-- it has been my experience in the past that ALL special education classes including speech-- which by their nature are often 2/3 students at a time, are averaged into the number. So class sizes in schools, especially elementary are averaged lower than what is real. And if the school average is 24, but your student's one class is a 5th grade with 31, you definitely feel differently

Anonymous said...

Was this voted on yet? If so, what was the result?