On another post Anonymous wrote:
Whoa! Only ONE person negotiates a several hundred thousand contract
for the Superintendent of a 25,000 students school district.
Oh, my goodness!
The Board President just made this statement.
Also, did anyone hear how the State Law was circumvented to allow the Superintendent's contract be renewed?
Oh, my goodness!
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Not meeting AYP because criteria have been raised?
On another post Anonymous wrote:
ossibly a new post:
On the (now) televised Legislative Meeting, Mrs. Hazuda proclaimed that PPS will probably not make AYP again this years because “the criteria have been raised”.
My question is: Why would you NOT expect or require that the CRITERIA be RAISED when in fact PPS is far below the PA State Standards for “Proficiency.”
(And, again, comparatively speaking PPS is 494th if number of districts in PA is 500. (Whatever the number of districts, there are only six districts that are poorer in proficiency in the state of Pennsylvania.)
PPS students are NOT well-served in a District that is in CORRECTIVE ACTION II, 4th year after 10 years of accountability to the very SAME PA Academic Standards. And yet a Board member states that we will NOT make AYP because the criteria has been raised. Does the PPS Board expect the criteria be lowered so that Pittsburgh can make AYP? Unbelievable!
Mrs. Colaizzi states that achievement is higher than it has ever been, yet, after 10 years of trying to reach the PA standard PPS is 30 to 40 to 50 points below the State minimum standard. The majority of African American students are more than 50 pts below the standard. Ten years ago they were only 20 points below the standard.
The facts are the facts and they are publicly accessible on the PDE website. To believe the PPS PR spin is truly unconscionable and DIS-SERVES our children who deserve “equity and excellence.”
ossibly a new post:
On the (now) televised Legislative Meeting, Mrs. Hazuda proclaimed that PPS will probably not make AYP again this years because “the criteria have been raised”.
My question is: Why would you NOT expect or require that the CRITERIA be RAISED when in fact PPS is far below the PA State Standards for “Proficiency.”
(And, again, comparatively speaking PPS is 494th if number of districts in PA is 500. (Whatever the number of districts, there are only six districts that are poorer in proficiency in the state of Pennsylvania.)
PPS students are NOT well-served in a District that is in CORRECTIVE ACTION II, 4th year after 10 years of accountability to the very SAME PA Academic Standards. And yet a Board member states that we will NOT make AYP because the criteria has been raised. Does the PPS Board expect the criteria be lowered so that Pittsburgh can make AYP? Unbelievable!
Mrs. Colaizzi states that achievement is higher than it has ever been, yet, after 10 years of trying to reach the PA standard PPS is 30 to 40 to 50 points below the State minimum standard. The majority of African American students are more than 50 pts below the standard. Ten years ago they were only 20 points below the standard.
The facts are the facts and they are publicly accessible on the PDE website. To believe the PPS PR spin is truly unconscionable and DIS-SERVES our children who deserve “equity and excellence.”
Friday, March 22, 2013
New PPS website
On another post Anonymous wrote:
Requesting a new thread for the new PPS website launch!
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/education/pittsburgh-school-district-retools-its-website-680349/
Requesting a new thread for the new PPS website launch!
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/education/pittsburgh-school-district-retools-its-website-680349/
Thursday, March 21, 2013
PPS financial predictions v. actual outcome
On another post Anonymous wrote:
New post:
So at the March 5, 2013 Finance meeting Budget Officer Ronald Joseph told the Board that fiscal 2012 - which ended December 31, 2012 - would end in more than a $6 million dollar deficit, meaning that expenses would be higher than revenues.
Oh what a difference two weeks makes.
Fast forward to March 20, 2013. The financial report in the Board Minutes reveals that fiscal 2012 actually ended with a SURPLUS on the year of more than $7 million.
Municipal accounting allows for a 60 day runout of revenues and expenditures, meaning that all activity would have ended on February 28, 2013.
Memo to Pete Camarda and Ron Joseph: exactly how did your forecast of 2012 - one week after all activity would have been recorded - get it wrong by $13 million? Does this mean that you aren't really tracking year to date budget to actual and associated variances?
How do you get it wrong by $13 million when the year is over and cry poor at the March 5th meeting?
Folks, it's even worse. The statements reflect a $1 million transfer to the unemployment compensation fund, a $1 million transfer to the General Liability fund, and a $2 million transfer to the self insurance health care fund. Without those transfers, the actual 2012 surplus would have been more than $11 million. How many of those transfer were done AFTER you realized how bad your forecast was?
This is the second year in a row that the district has run a very large surplus on the year while crying poor in public.
Why exactly should we trust your projections for 2013 or any other year? Two weeks and all activity had ceased!
Take this a step further - with the roughly $14 million fund balance growth over the last two years, why did the district enact a tax increase for 2013? Did we cut more teachers than we needed to?
It's time for a full investigation.
New post:
So at the March 5, 2013 Finance meeting Budget Officer Ronald Joseph told the Board that fiscal 2012 - which ended December 31, 2012 - would end in more than a $6 million dollar deficit, meaning that expenses would be higher than revenues.
Oh what a difference two weeks makes.
Fast forward to March 20, 2013. The financial report in the Board Minutes reveals that fiscal 2012 actually ended with a SURPLUS on the year of more than $7 million.
Municipal accounting allows for a 60 day runout of revenues and expenditures, meaning that all activity would have ended on February 28, 2013.
Memo to Pete Camarda and Ron Joseph: exactly how did your forecast of 2012 - one week after all activity would have been recorded - get it wrong by $13 million? Does this mean that you aren't really tracking year to date budget to actual and associated variances?
How do you get it wrong by $13 million when the year is over and cry poor at the March 5th meeting?
Folks, it's even worse. The statements reflect a $1 million transfer to the unemployment compensation fund, a $1 million transfer to the General Liability fund, and a $2 million transfer to the self insurance health care fund. Without those transfers, the actual 2012 surplus would have been more than $11 million. How many of those transfer were done AFTER you realized how bad your forecast was?
This is the second year in a row that the district has run a very large surplus on the year while crying poor in public.
Why exactly should we trust your projections for 2013 or any other year? Two weeks and all activity had ceased!
Take this a step further - with the roughly $14 million fund balance growth over the last two years, why did the district enact a tax increase for 2013? Did we cut more teachers than we needed to?
It's time for a full investigation.
Problem with CBA's
On another post Anonymous wrote:
Please use this to start a new post!
WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE GOOSE...
Ok, I'm mad. No, mad doesn't quite cover it. Totally disgusted is probably closer to the truth! In January, high school students took CBAs--benchmark tests that serve as the final exam grades in each course. These scores are also used, however, to determine teacher effectiveness and are a part of the yeacher's "Value Added Measure". There were so many issues surrounding this test administration, however, that the Union has informed it's membership that the score will be disregarded and not used for any teacher evaluation purposes. Bravo to the teachers for managing to bring to the administration the issues, and kudos to the Board for agreeing that it was such a horrid situation that scores are invalid. What has my panties in a bunch, however, is the fact that to date, NO ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE TO DISREGARD THE GRADES FOR STUDENTS! Why are we allowing our children to be evaluated via final exam grades when the test scores were not valid!?? My son saw a marked decrease in his GPA due to poor final exam grades. As he is a junior, that GPA may now hinder him in his ability to be accepted to certain universities. It may also negatively impact his Promise Readiness status. I am outraged that our children are being made to suffer the sins of an inadequate and unreliable series of tests. We need to come together and demand that if the scores were invalid enough to be discounted in the evaluation of teachers, they should also be thrown out as valid indicators of the achievement of our kids.
Angry and Disgusted Parent
Please use this to start a new post!
WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE GOOSE...
Ok, I'm mad. No, mad doesn't quite cover it. Totally disgusted is probably closer to the truth! In January, high school students took CBAs--benchmark tests that serve as the final exam grades in each course. These scores are also used, however, to determine teacher effectiveness and are a part of the yeacher's "Value Added Measure". There were so many issues surrounding this test administration, however, that the Union has informed it's membership that the score will be disregarded and not used for any teacher evaluation purposes. Bravo to the teachers for managing to bring to the administration the issues, and kudos to the Board for agreeing that it was such a horrid situation that scores are invalid. What has my panties in a bunch, however, is the fact that to date, NO ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE TO DISREGARD THE GRADES FOR STUDENTS! Why are we allowing our children to be evaluated via final exam grades when the test scores were not valid!?? My son saw a marked decrease in his GPA due to poor final exam grades. As he is a junior, that GPA may now hinder him in his ability to be accepted to certain universities. It may also negatively impact his Promise Readiness status. I am outraged that our children are being made to suffer the sins of an inadequate and unreliable series of tests. We need to come together and demand that if the scores were invalid enough to be discounted in the evaluation of teachers, they should also be thrown out as valid indicators of the achievement of our kids.
Angry and Disgusted Parent
Could extra time be the solution?
Let's hypothesize that some kids enter first grade a year or two behind- they don't know letters or shapes or have a basic understanding of addition or subtraction. And let's say the school moves them forward a year's worth of learning; they will still not be proficient on that year's tests. And then the next year, if they make a year's worth of progress they will still not be proficient on the tests for that current grade. If each year the children are actually proficient at a level a year or two behind their actual grade, then could it be that because they started behind they just need a year or two of extra schooling to attain a high school level education? And that the answer might be to provide those who start at a disadvantage with a year or two of compensatory education, ideally in a way that is interesting and engaging so that they will want to attend, and maybe with some opportunities to earn some money? Could the solution be to give a little extra time to those who need it?
Link to PCNTV daily schedule
Broadcasts of PPS meetings and the mayoral debate take place at various times throughout the day and night:
http://108.32.57.34:50000/external_schedule/simple_day_schedule?id=21
http://108.32.57.34:50000/external_schedule/simple_day_schedule?id=21
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)