Friday, June 24, 2016

It's about land development

Testimony of Kate Daher at the PPS Public Hearing June 20, 2016:

"I support the Pittsburgh Public School Board and Dr. Anthony Hamlet as the new superintendent. I hope they both stay strong against the onslaught of reaction they are facing now.

I want to talk about the role that racism has played in the educational reform movement. Racism is the elephant in the room either ignored or discouraged in conversation. It’s not overt racism, though there is plenty of that in comments to the Post-Gazette, rather, it’s a structural racism. It is less clearly defined and hidden under the guise of progress.
The reform movement’s focus on urban schools — comprised of students of color and the poor — has all but destroyed school systems in big cities across the country. In their zest to remake the cities, the reformers and their allies have closed schools, cut programs, and more. This movement is not about “fixing schools.” It is about land development.
Howard University School of Education Dean Leslie Fenwick explained in aWashington Post article “…schemes like Teach For America, charter schools backed by venture capitalists, and the Broad school for superintendents are designed to shift tax dollars away from schools serving black and poor students.” The land development primarily taking place in the East End and downtown Pittsburgh, while progress for some, has resulted in a significant displacement of the poor and black population. Some are moving away from the city. Many cannot afford to live here where the economic pressure on them and their ability to maintain homes or rentals in Pittsburgh, has been devastating. That’s why opponents to these schemes, label them as racist. Land development and the reform model of education negatively impacts the students with the highest needs — and for Pittsburgh, that is our black and poor populations.
Following is a more extensive quote from Dr. Fenwick, printed in the Washington Post:
As the nation’s inner cities are dotted with coffee shop chains… and the skyline changes from public housing to high-rise condominiums… listen to the refrain about school reform sung by some intimidated elected officials …that refrain is really about exporting the urban poor, reclaiming inner city land, and using schools to recalculate urban land value. This … is not about children, it’s about the business elite gaining access to the nearly $600 billion that supports the nation’s public schools. It’s about money!”
Does that sound like Pittsburgh today? We must maintain our democratically elected school board and support Dr. Anthony Hamlet as our new superintendent. We must continue to reject the business model of education. We must continue to fight to replace this model with a community school model — one that will improve student learning and work closely with teachers and community members. That’s what public education is about. Let’s keep the public in the school board and our schools."

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

of course it was an obvious land grab-- looking directly at the Schenly and Reizenstein fiasco. We went from k-8s to a quality middle school program- strangely similar to more affluent districts, with opportunities for all students to come together and explore and learn. Yes the k-8 were working but it was better to bring together diverse communities --athletics blossomed, more ability for scholars,etc. The community backed it because they could see opportunity. Instead we got a carpet bagger to come in, and convince us to be like other inner city schools-- lets go K-8, uniforms, drop anything but reading and math, no plays no band, no cooking-- hey let's play parochial school of the 50s. See their budgets are smaller and parents are happy. And we get prime real estate and resegregation! And in the name of being sure that lower economic neighborhoods have the same as other schools-- lets drop out anything that is unique about individual schools. Oh and let's really combine them by making 6-12 schools ( something many parents in Homewood wisely rejected in the late 60s/70s - feeling that wasnt for their students- and shipped them to neighboring K-8) Look around-- any more real estate? 5 seats on the board ? Pittsburgh be careful and fight for a non-Broad/Gates superintendent and board. This plagarism cry is a total distraction again to line someone's pockets!

Questioner said...

And let's note again for new readers- Schenley was the original land/building grab.

If there is any doubt, keep in mind that PPS had decisive laboratory evidence in 2009 that the schools plaster was NOT asbestos containing (except for auditorium acoustical plaster). But yet, those test results were not disclosed to the public until the summer of 2012. Developers were courted and given the news while city residents were left in the dark.

Anonymous said...

East Liberty and Bloomfield are prime examples of gentrification. Poor people have been forced out of their homes/areas. The business men and women building these condos are making big bucks at the expense of the former residents' upheavals. Residents have been forced out of Pittsburgh to poor areas in the suburbs. They certainly haven't moved to Mt. Lebanon or Fox Chapel!

Anonymous said...

I don't think anyone was happy about the way East Liberty was- at least the commercial area. Development is a mixed bag, and it is difficult to get it right.

Anonymous said...

No the mall idea was bad- but that had nothing to do with killing the concept of a comprehensive middle school that worked- just to give the land to developers. If anyone saw kids after their first visit to Reizenstein the positive hope is something I dont see in young people's eyes today. That is the spark that is missing-- talk to kids in the city you dont hear, " next year I'm going to....." Of course Rand is finding parents more important to students's learning-- school is about drill/kill/ test. Taxes are not less in the city, and yet families are getting alot less.

Anonymous said...

"Public" education is the bedrock of our society. The charters think they can get it right using "public" school monies but still fall short; the private schools profess so much success but only with a select group of students (throwing out those who disrupt the mold); and the classroom door constantly swings back and forth with eager young idealists who aren't truly grounded in what commitment to urban education really entails.

"Public" education, the bedrock of our society, is founded on the concept that ALL students coming into its fold are accepted with whatever they bring to the dance and that the "public" educators who oversee their academic and social growth will do everything possible to help them achieve and develop their unique rhythm of skill and talent so that they eventually make a positive global impact on future generations.

Maybe that definition only resides in a "perfect" world. Maybe that definition in the eyes of foundations, and businesses, and special interest groups comes through as an impossible venture. I don't know. However, I dare all of us within this diverse community (because we know what it takes) to get started with pursuing that kind of perfection through the foundation of public education!

Anonymous said...

One thing omitted in this discussion is the steady decline of the city of Pittsburgh's population after the steel mills closed down plus white flight and a middle class tax base. Being able to afford all of the excess properties was a luxury. Does anyone have a breakdown of the school population's before the closures. I recall that this was the overriding force in the decisions at the time.
A case in point, Westinghouse. The capacity was close to 1 thousand students but barely had 400. Nevertheless, we sunk 20 million dollars into it and also built a brand new building called Faison. Besides, Peabody was a nightmare of a failing school that forced many East-end parents to private or move away.
The point I'm making is money can only go so far. Budgets are real and must be acknowledged. I don't think it's completely fair to omit what else was happening at the time to keep it all in perspective.
As I have posted previously, my taxes are high.

Questioner said...

One problem with the "closing schools to save money" argument is that at least here in Pittsburgh over the past 10 years, the administration simply refused to calculate the COSTS as well as the benefits of closing. Costs include extra transportation expenses, extra administrators they have had to put in place to handle more students and broader age groups of students, maintenance on closed buildings that cannot be sold, and probably the largest expense: the cost of paying tuition for students that would have attended a district "neighborhood" school but switch to a charter when a neighborhood school is no longer available. (The best example of that is Burgwin- there were supposed to be big cost savings but instead it was years of turmoil assimilating students elsewhere and then Propel opened in the Burgwin building- in the end most likely costing the district more, but that information is never provided.)

And this doesn't include costs that are harder to tally up, such as lost class time when students who used to be able to walk miss buses and have no other way to get to school, and decreased family engagement when parents without transportation cannot get to conferences or school activities.

We just never saw anything that took all of these factors into account.

Anonymous said...

The loss of population was real and taxes are high. But people who want to live in the city do so for a multitude of reasons- one of them is convenient to work. Not everyone wants to trudge in from the burbs- even for good schools. It wasnt that long ago we had world- class schools, and even lower performing schools had champions in the neighborhoods, who wanted close-by schools for younger kids. Our city is getting alot of national PR-- but we need schools to go with it.
One way to deal with this is to stop hiring outside consultants, programs etc. Look at what works, using own staff and tell others. Instead of principals running about with laptops grading teachers, return to what worked. Principals and VPs dealing with issues in schools so the teachers can teach. Rumor is that they are not requiring principals to give unsats now that they know there is a shortage of teachers.
If you are concerned about test scores- utilize the resources that we all pay for at the state level. Instead of scripted meetings of speeches-- let teachers gather as they once did and ask, "what's working?"
We have lost grassroots input-- we had instructional cabinets that sat to solve issues, not just listen to speeches.Union building committees worked to solve problems
YTes we have to folo that affected students.
Yes there is a huge outpouring of $$ into charter schools where our students are going. If they had the interest and really wanted to know why-- there would always be a story of policy and paperwork being more important than "something happened to a kid, in a family, and nothing was done to solve it" They arent getting better education in charter schools-- scored have proven that-- but a feeling of safety, security, and being heard, opportunity for innovative programs- that's what they are getting with our $$
Yes we have to follow the $$ and see where Broad/Gates has taken it

Anonymous said...

This has become a JOKE😃 thought it was about the Superintendent job Mr. Hamlet
Now we talking about land development which has no association with Mr Hamlet came in to help turn around PPS
Oh North Allegeny School District as well issues about LAND DEVELOPMENT

Questioner said...

Understand that there is a lot of profit in land development. But you need administrators who will cooperate- who can be flattered, fooled, incentivized or otherwise convinced to go along. Someone other than Dr. Hamlet.

Anonymous said...

What is the comment about racism. The white people are fleeing from the PPS!