Are any of PURE's commentors planning to go? What issues will you raise?
The School District is looking to eliminate $100 million in costs. Where will it come from?
From A+:
"City School Budget: A Community Discussion on Setting Priorities--Next Steps
Find out more from Superintendent Dr. Linda Lane.
Speak up and share what you think.
Join A+ Schools on Monday, June 27th, 5:30PM at the Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers building on the South Side.
Find out what's at stake for PPS and weigh in on proposed cuts.
Free food and child care!"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
54 comments:
Why is a budget meeting for the district being held at the PFT building? I understand wanting community imput, but is this the right venue?
Are people allowed to ask questions regarding concerns about Broad, bloated admin and concerns about mismanagement, or are these meetings "Superintendent friendly?"
Courage and concern are all that is needed to raise such questions. We need more and more people with courage and concern! Step up!
Virtually all A+ meetings have an administration presentation, a limited number of questions and then small group discussions (often with a district employee heading each group). Is anyone else too tired of this format to attend another meeting set up this way?
I would prefer a town hall meeting format. I have participated in round tables before and could use a change. A time limit at a mic would be good too or asking for written comments prior to the meeting could be helpful. The round table feel too pep rally at times too.
WAA and their team put together a comprehensive 40 point action plan and sent it to Dr. Lane and others on the Board and Administration without a response.
That displayed a tremendous amount of courage, hard work and innovation.
Still no response.
Instead, random comments from small groups will be duly noted by A+ and passed on to the administration, which will then state that there has been community input.
That is correct! Any meeting is chalked up to listening to the community and used as evidence by the District that they involved community. However, there is NEVER a reference to community input that differs from the plan that has already commenced without any input outside of Central Office, Broad, Gates, and Consultants.
Yet, it is smart to attend so that community can bear witness to the aforementioned tactic.
It is always good to be able to cite the evidence!
49% of the people who attended the meeting were East Enders,
Isn't that usually the case?
Any information?
Questioner, you are correct, East Enders show up in doroves. Forgive me for getting chatty, but here is a short story for you. A very long time ago when my son was in 1st grade, I volunteered to represent our school in a districtwide parent committee. After the first few meetings I met with our principal to ask some questions that would help me participate more. When I asked why there seems to be greater representation from the parent community in the east she explained that those parents generally get interested in their schools before their kids get out of strollers. They know which schools and programs are good before the kids become toddlers and have an established network to trust for answers, other local parents with kids slightly older. Developing those neighborhood networks should be a priority.
A+ will be posting all the results and commentary from the meeting on its site, in addition to the presentation done by Dr. Lane and Dr. French.
I would not want to misquote or be misleading based on a layman's interpretation, but I will say this:
Attendees agreed in high numbers that they understood that under-enrolled classes contribute to higher costs than are necessary.
Attendeesa agreed in high numbers that it makes sense that course offerings will need to be reduced to address under-enrolled classes.
Attendees agreed in high numbers that smaller high schools can't afford to offer the same number or type of courses offered in a larger high school. BUT...
Polling also showed a high response rate of Definitely NOT to questions about high likely you would be to support fewer elective core courses, fewer electives, and the reduction of specific programs as a way to adjust spending.
I hope I got all this right.
So, we understand, but don't want to give anything up.
smh...
I love the pretzel logic employed by Lane and French. Did anyone ask why so many central administrators are still being employed? Did anyone ask why so many people who have NO dealings with our kids actually get to keep their jobs?
Did anyone ask Lane why she needs French, anyway?
Did anyone ask Lane why so many assistant superintendents are needed, or why those people have so many assistants, or why we need individual departments with between 7 and 10 people on staff who do nothing more than sit in the office or run PD sessions?
Dr.Lane is just another politician, protecting her own. Shame. I would have hoped she was different but that she would rubber stamp such cuts is reflective of her mindset.
The Westinghouse Alumni Association came up with a 40 point list of ways to cut the budget- and none of them involved cutting popular electives or programs. Was the WAA list discussed? Here is the link to the list:
http://purereform.blogspot.com/2011/05/reality-based-budgeting.html
The overwhelming response of A+ meeting participants was NOT to CUT FOREIGN LANGUAGE, arts, music, athletics, phys ed, career & technology or other electives at ANY school across the district.
That, I think, was the most important response; it indicates that parents, community, educators in attendance DO NOT want educational opportunities cut or limited for any student in PPS.
It appeared that the surveys were set up so that the choices to cut or limit all fell on the backs of students?!?
NOWHERE among the choices was there an opportunity to vote/poll for a reduction of Central Office Administrators. Of course, the majority of educators present included Central Office Administrators. There were at LEAST 10 present. (Missing were Lippert, Otuwa, and Taliaferro)
It seems likely that most parents and community members favor cuts to central administration and consultants over cuts to languages/arts/music/activities/facilities and maintenance. Maybe someone can follow up with A + about why there was no opportunity to express this preference.
Continuance of 10"16:
This comment is for PPS Central Office Administrators, most particularly the Superintendent:
Schools exist for the EDUCATION of children! If we cut the courses and programs and practices that best serve that purpose we do NOT need schools.
Schools are NOT highly paid employment opportunities for adults!
When children, parents, community get a strong message from schools and educators that the true purpose of schools is understood and that schools are there to serve children with the best practice, ultimate commitment and highest of expectations, they will respond in kind!
Questioner, I was referring to Dr.French, the "go-between" from Lane to her assistant superintendents. Why is this position needed.
I am in complete agreement....we need electives, especially FL.
Anonymous 10:16 is correct, the majority present did not want to experience cuts to core and non-core electives. The meeting was an attempt to get stakeholder buy-in to the closings and cuts coming in the future. There were questions submitted on index cards and I don't think one from our table was read and answered due to time. I don't think anyone said these exact words and that the message was sent might be disputed, but don't be surprised if at some point you hear something like...more kids can be put in classes if the teacher is highly effective. Not my idea, as a non-educator I have always thought differentiated instruction was a myth.
What is crazy is that all sorts of time and presumably money was put into developing electives like African American history and women's studies. Now are they going to cut them?
The A+ Meeting Survey, for the most part, was constructed in such a way as to elicit the answers the PPS Admin was seeking. And, for the most part, they got what they were seeking re: closing buildings, substantially increasing class size, etc. The only DISSENT was around eliminating electives beyond the core. That dissent was overwhelming!
All options were worded to get the desired result. Eliminating electives defied the construct of the option with an overwhelmingly negative response.
Perhaps people began to catch on to the wording and construct of options that forced certain responses leading to large class sizes and closing buildings. A "do over" on these might have changed the responses.
I'm sure that Josef Goebbels organized question and answer sessions in the same manner back in Nazi Germany.
We've been witness to a fascinating time in Pittsburgh Public Schools---the age of no accountability.
Dr.Lane is not accountable to taxpayers. Heck, she even wants scripted or approved questions.
And how individuals like French, Lippert, Otuwa or any other "central administrator" at PPS is allowed to talk is mind numbing.
Propaganda.
Pure propaganda.
I'd hope we'd see Carey Harris come out and discuss her disappointment with this process, but why is it that A+---like the PFT---seems to be an auxiliary of the district, and nothing more.
I don't understand why any of this is happening.
I've watched the "Believe" video, read the district newspaper, went to Mark Roosevelt's farewell tea party at the Carnegie, went to the grand announcement of the Gates partnership at the Carnegie, heard Broad-trained John Deasy speak to all PPS employees - all of these sources tell me that we are doing everything right!
Re: the controlled questions- this is something to consider next time we need to choose a superintendent. Ask candidates whether, if chosen, they will meet with citizens on a regular basis to answer questions directly. There can be ground rules- such as, a limit on background information leading up to the question, no name calling, etc., but the main idea would be whether the person under consideration would engage in a direct dialogue. If not- other factors might lead us to choose that person nevertheless- but this question would give a good sense for how open of an administration we would be receiving.
However the citizens of the City of Pittsburgh has zero control to hire the superintendent it is the school board. We need to change the school board. If our current board was to choose a new Superintendent we would have more of the same unless the citizens vote out the old board and bring in new.
True. The election of Dr. Holley as the Democratic candidate for District 2 is a step in the right direction, but we will need to stick with these efforts.
I think that for years, central administration has had this view of parents as being somewhat insane, and I am not attempting to add humor to this thread. It seems to me that people in charge look at parents not as taxpayers who truly pay the salaries of virtually everyone within PPS but rather, people who are a collective pain in the backside. The ideas has always seemed to me to be one that states: they have no clue what we are trying to do and we do not even need to explain it to them. We see the bigger picture. We know, and they don't. Let's save time and handpick questions.
I have seen principals who will patiently sit and answer each parental question. I've seen selfless administrators give as much time as necessary to allay parental concerns.
But I have not seen it recently, from any administrator.
And to me, that's troubling, and emblematic of the 'playbook' mentality that is now being used to run this district.
Like many, I had high hopes for Dr.Lane. I simply see her as another politician these days.
The entire meeting was predicated on "80% of the budget is salaries and benefits" THUS "we should cut teachers. No only did they not tell us what percentage of salaries is teachers vs. central admin vs. support staff, that question was not answered at the end.
The question of cost per central administration staff per teacher needs to be asked. How many are making 110-200k ( minus bonus).
I'll start feel free to add on.
Lane
Fischetti
French
Lippert
Poncelete
Campbell
Camardi
Eddy Jones
M. Pastor
Cate Reed
Sam Franklin
Ted Vassar
~I am sure there are many more.
C. Otuwa and J. Spolar?
J. House?
Nancy Kodman, Barbara Rudiak, Jan Ripper, Rhonda Taliaferro, and newly added David May Stein.
It would be interesting to know how this list compares to the list of administrators in this salary range prior to Mark Roosevelt. Maybe we just need to go back to the organization chart from that time.
This is quadruple times or more likely 5 times the number in top Central Office positions and at lesser salaries.
It's OUTRAGEOUS!
And remember the number of students and schools has been drastically reduced.
Also, remember, this does not include the myriad of consultants hired to do and redo their work/
Who is David May Stein?
And of course Derrick Lopez has been and until July 1 remains on the list. Standing arrangements like Solicitor Ira Weiss has should also be included.
Questioner,
Regarding 11:01
Aren't most of these people the same ones that worked for Roosevelt? They were given raises as Mr. Taylor noted in January though.
Chris Berdnik's 140k parting gift.
Right, so we would want to compare the list not to a list of administrators from Mr. Roosevelt's time, but to a list from the administration prior to Mr. Roosevelt.
Here's an article on David May Stein's new position:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11118/1142629-100.stm
A position for Virginia Hill is also mentioned and may qualify for the list.
I don't believe Ted Vassar should be on the list. His position was around long before Roosevelt and he is not making what other central office staff makes. He actually works for his pay.
Add to the list
Anita Ravi and the other curriculum supervisors
Barbara Rudiak
Victoria Berger
This is not a list of just new positions or of positions that may be unnecessary. To start with it is just a list of administrators at a certain pay range.
"I don't believe Ted Vassar should be on the list. His position was around long before Roosevelt and he is not making what other central office staff makes. He actually works for his pay. "
This is not about questioning who deserves their salary, it is about why such a vast number of people are required to make over 6 figures while cutting teachers and classes. I think Pete Camarda works hard too.
"The board named David May-Stein, principal of Pittsburgh Colfax K-8, as the assistant superintendent of K-8 and middle schools. It also named Virginia Hill, principal of Stevens K-8, as the executive director of curriculum, instruction and professional development. The agenda said there were vacancies in both positions"
WTF does Lippertt do?
Who held the positions prior to the vacancies filled by May Stein and Hill?
Is it likely that May Stein and Hill were moved out to free up space for PELA's?
good work Questioner-- now people are seeing exactly what is going on-no one is saying that some of these adminstrators arent and werent workers-- but the constantly adding more more more--and then saying-"sorry" when the servers go down etc. isnt doing well by families--especially families fror whom "fidelity to the script" isnt their biggest priority.
The presentation done by Drs. Lane and French during the A+ meeting on Monday is available to view under ppstube on the pghboe site.
"Who held the positions prior to the vacancies filled by May Stein and Hill?
Is it likely that May Stein and Hill were moved out to free up space for PELA's?
June 29, 2011 12:52 AM"
Easy answer: PELA's replacing Stein & Hill.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11118/1142629-
100.stm?cmpid=localstate.xml
The practice of creating new central administration jobs to make sure no PELA goes without a placement was covered in the parts of the "how we got where we are" series already reported on this site.
At least three flavors of the practice seem to have been used: 1) place the PELAs in newly created central admin jobs; 2) place the PELAs in temporary positions as central admin until something else opens; 3) create school level space by pulling principals into central admin positions.
Regardless of the save-a-PELA strategy, the end results tends to be the same: upward growth in the admin cost per student at PPS.
Or put 2 principals in a school a la Westinghouse.
Milliones UPrep is going to have 4 principals next year or so I hear.
Could it be that the "discipline and order" agenda is being resurrected using more admin in buildings? Are administrators part of the PRC teams? If not, why not?
More people would be sympathetic over the budget issues if we saw some reduction to executive staff.
I know that Uprep will have Hardy, the "I drink and live by the PELA kool-aid" guy who did his residency at Carrick, and Rhonda Taliaferro, who has been all over the district.
If teachers there think they had it bad when Hardy drummed up anti-teacher remarks to the kids, just wait until this year.
Post a Comment