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.
Often just the Thursday evening and Friday morning TV times are listed (the meeting did not air on Thanksgiving) but many times there is a Sunday replay as well.
At the meeting Sherry Hazuda pointed out that the proposal for Arlington was essentially for a $30M expenditure and that there had been inadequate discussion of the plan. There was a unanimous vote to table the proposal for now.
You have to wonder what the vote might have been had Ms. Hazuda not made the tabling motion. Then, you have to wonder how many votes have been taken where less than adequate discussion was not made an issue.
Maybe there should be a referendum on whether to spend $30M on this school that currently has 458 students with enrollment presumably dropping as with the rest of the district. What are the alternatives? Are there other schools/ buildings with greater need?
I hope I was listening correctly-but that was Roosevelt’s last meeting as Superintendent, Kudos were given, etc., etc.
The December meeting will have the new or interim superintendent in place. He might have personal reasons for not attending the last meeting.
I believe I heard accurately, Could another blogger clarify for me. I would appreciate-a clarifiation because this seems to send a signal to us that the Board has made the transition-I believe Roosevelt would not leave that early without full transition measures for his seamless exit.
Another observation at the beginning of the meeting I believe the man in the start, as a guest was Jay Costa Jr-giving Roosevelt a culminating round of appraisal from state and levels with awards.
It is not about Roosevelt’s awards it was the politician-and yes, our Board are elected officials.
I guess politicians have the capabilities to denounce their wrongdoings and teachers or parents with other jobs would be terminated-for his infraction.
It just shows the hypocrisy with our politicians-our board allowed his presence-was it not the same day he went to the magistrate for fines –maybe he was clear of his infraction-for a teacher or parent ARD Program-this Board would be terminated on the spot with no ARD and no words to suffice to keep one’s PPS job or maybe a parent in another occupation..
The parade of awards for PPS progress (when there is a decided loss of progress) at local, state, and national levels is the "politicians" way of wallowing in 'glory' constructed to perpetuate the adult agendas____at the expense of Pittsburgh students whose academic performance is generally between 60% to 80% NOT proficient.
At the Board meeting there were references to the superintendent viewing results 10 or 20 years from now and seeing the effects of his efforts. So it looks like the Board is willing to wait a while for results.
For sure, if there had been great success this year no one would be crediting whoever was superintendent 20 years ago. Does anyone even remember? The idea seemed to be that MR would know he had a hand in the results.
It's really hard to imagine many of the initiatives from the last 5 years standing the test of time for 20 years, though.
I'd like to address two questions/ concerns asked or stated.
Firstly, to get the politics out of education, as much as possible, is to get rid of the PA and US Dept. of Ed.--- waste of tax dollars, and to break the marriage between union leaders and local/state/federal government leaders. Union leaders need to return to representing and protecting their members not their political friends. Board members need to be held accountable to the families they represent and to the taxpayers who pay the bills. Therefore, they need to be accessible to the public. If not, vote them out!
Secondly, Sherry Hazuda appears to have had a fire light under her by questioning the $30M expenditure. Could it possibly be that she is concerned with her re-election? I heard that she will face opposition next year. Now, if we can only find opposition for the other board members, then they would behave more responsible. That is accountability!
Sherry Hazuda was told to speak for Fink's district school-Arlington-thus to have it on record-because she is in the South Hills Region-the shcool ARLINGTON is a feeder not her high schools-so it looks like a joint effort-whereas if another board member brought it up from the Eastern Region would wouls not be acceptable in terms o leverage.
It is quite likely that getting rid of theA and US Departments of Education would save taxpayers' money and rid education of politic. the primary responsibility of each is accountability_____ which would not be needed if Unions held their members accountable rather than defending the indefensible.
Even better would be to rid the system of unions and institute a system of personal and professional integrity and accountability ____ for meeting the implicit demands of the profession ____teaching and educating.
Did Dick Wallace ever really, truly leave Pittsburgh Public Schools???? All of this tends to remind me of The Wizard of Oz from time to time. Just who is that guy behind the curtain?
for the past several years Dick Wallace and a Team from the University and PDE have been working in the Woodland Hills School District where success has not been within reach as Woodland Hills is the next lowest achieving district in Allegheny County. Pittsburgh, PPS, is the lowest achieving in Allegheny County in Corrective Action ii, 3rd year. Woodland Hills in in Corrective Action II, 2nd year.
Anonymous 8:24 your comments lead one to think that the motion to table the $30M Arlington study was planned ahead. Do you think there are rehearsals for this type of action?
Make elected PPS Board Members ineligible for the ballot for other elected office for a period of 3 or more years following the departure from that school board member role.
The union mention is also noted from another poster above.
Candidates often crave union endorsements and the union money for campaigns. A candidate that gets money from the PFT can run elsewhere for city council and mayor and such.
Once the PPS Board Member offices are TERMINAL, the link to the union money gravy train is far less important.
26 comments:
Often just the Thursday evening and Friday morning TV times are listed (the meeting did not air on Thanksgiving) but many times there is a Sunday replay as well.
At the meeting Sherry Hazuda pointed out that the proposal for Arlington was essentially for a $30M expenditure and that there had been inadequate discussion of the plan. There was a unanimous vote to table the proposal for now.
You have to wonder what the vote might have been had Ms. Hazuda not made the tabling motion. Then, you have to wonder how many votes have been taken where less than adequate discussion was not made an issue.
Maybe there should be a referendum on whether to spend $30M on this school that currently has 458 students with enrollment presumably dropping as with the rest of the district. What are the alternatives? Are there other schools/ buildings with greater need?
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I hope I was listening correctly-but that was Roosevelt’s last meeting as Superintendent, Kudos were given, etc., etc.
The December meeting will have the new or interim superintendent in place. He might have personal reasons for not attending the last meeting.
I believe I heard accurately, Could another blogger clarify for me. I would appreciate-a clarifiation because this seems to send a signal to us that the Board has made the transition-I believe Roosevelt would not leave that early without full transition measures for his seamless exit.
Although nothing was spelled out clearly it is likely that the superintendent will use vacation days at month's end.
Another observation at the beginning of the meeting I believe the man in the start, as a guest was Jay Costa Jr-giving Roosevelt a culminating round of appraisal from state and levels with awards.
It is not about Roosevelt’s awards it was the politician-and yes, our Board are elected officials.
I guess politicians have the capabilities to denounce their wrongdoings and teachers or parents with other jobs would be terminated-for his infraction.
It just shows the hypocrisy with our politicians-our board allowed his presence-was it not the same day he went to the magistrate for fines –maybe he was clear of his infraction-for a teacher or parent ARD Program-this Board would be terminated on the spot with no ARD and no words to suffice to keep one’s PPS job or maybe a parent in another occupation..
The parade of awards for PPS progress (when there is a decided loss of progress) at local, state, and national levels is the "politicians" way of wallowing in 'glory' constructed to perpetuate the adult agendas____at the expense of Pittsburgh students whose academic performance is generally between 60% to 80% NOT proficient.
How do we get politics out for education?
How do we get politics out of education?
How do we create an agenda that is for students' advancement and not adult advancement?
The corporate strategy is that adult advancement will be the reward for student advancement.
Is that strategy working?
At the Board meeting there were references to the superintendent viewing results 10 or 20 years from now and seeing the effects of his efforts. So it looks like the Board is willing to wait a while for results.
I wonder if that was Richard Wallace's strategy/ approach, or Andy King's, or Helen Faison, or even Louse Brennan's?
Whatever the strategy or approach of these leaders, the results for students were within the year.
Do you think the Superintendent 10 to 20 years from now will credit the Roosevelt administration with their success or lack thereof?
For sure, if there had been great success this year no one would be crediting whoever was superintendent 20 years ago. Does anyone even remember? The idea seemed to be that MR would know he had a hand in the results.
It's really hard to imagine many of the initiatives from the last 5 years standing the test of time for 20 years, though.
A very intersting reference on the doen the road for results an answer from MR-40 years????? A reiterated beautiful masterpiece discussed on this blog
African-American Achievement Gap on Pace to Disappear in 40 Years
Black Voice News
“High schools are very much where our greatest efforts need to be,” said PPS Superintendent Mark Roosevelt. “The results at high schools are still ...
By Rebecca Nuttall, Special to the NNPA from the New Pittsburgh Courier –
I'd like to address two questions/ concerns asked or stated.
Firstly, to get the politics out of education, as much as possible, is to get rid of the PA and US Dept. of Ed.--- waste of tax dollars, and to break the marriage between union leaders and local/state/federal government leaders. Union leaders need to return to representing and protecting their members not their political friends. Board members need to be held accountable to the families they represent and to the taxpayers who pay the bills. Therefore, they need to be accessible to the public. If not, vote them out!
Secondly, Sherry Hazuda appears to have had a fire light under her by questioning the $30M expenditure. Could it possibly be that she is concerned with her re-election? I heard that she will face opposition next year. Now, if we can only find opposition for the other board members, then they would behave more responsible. That is accountability!
The Costa who pled guilty to disorderly conduct was Paul. Not the Costa who made a presentation at the board meeting.
Plead equilty for the wrong idenity for the guest speaker Costa.
Sorry to Paul Costa-please aceept my apology.
Sherry Hazuda was told to speak for Fink's district school-Arlington-thus to have it on record-because she is in the South Hills Region-the shcool ARLINGTON is a feeder not her high schools-so it looks like a joint effort-whereas if another board member brought it up from the Eastern Region would wouls not be acceptable in terms o leverage.
Any bloggers attending the affair for Roosevelt on December 1st?
It is quite likely that getting rid of theA and US Departments of Education would save taxpayers' money and rid education of politic. the primary responsibility of each is accountability_____ which would not be needed if Unions held their members accountable rather than defending the indefensible.
Even better would be to rid the system
of unions and institute a system of personal and professional integrity and accountability ____ for meeting the implicit demands of the profession ____teaching and educating.
Did Dick Wallace ever really, truly leave Pittsburgh Public Schools???? All of this tends to remind me of The Wizard of Oz from time to time. Just who is that guy behind the curtain?
for the past several years Dick Wallace and a Team from the University and PDE have been working in the Woodland Hills School District where success has not been within reach as Woodland Hills is the next lowest achieving district in Allegheny County. Pittsburgh, PPS, is the lowest achieving in Allegheny County in Corrective Action ii, 3rd year. Woodland Hills in in Corrective Action II, 2nd year.
Anonymous 8:24 your comments lead one to think that the motion to table the $30M Arlington study was planned ahead. Do you think there are rehearsals for this type of action?
In many ways the public meetings seem more for show or to satisfy formalities than for real discussion and decision-making.
How do we get politics out of education?
Make elected PPS Board Members ineligible for the ballot for other elected office for a period of 3 or more years following the departure from that school board member role.
The union mention is also noted from another poster above.
Candidates often crave union endorsements and the union money for campaigns. A candidate that gets money from the PFT can run elsewhere for city council and mayor and such.
Once the PPS Board Member offices are TERMINAL, the link to the union money gravy train is far less important.
Post a Comment