PURE Reform - Parents United for Responsible Educational Reform


Mission Statement	Announcements	Featured Topics	Three Year Review of District Initiatives	Questions About High School Reform	Blog	Links	Transparency Watch
Educational Committee Meeting April 14, 2009 The meeting started with Mark Roosevelt giving a PowerPoint presentation regarding the district’s planned use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARA) federal funds. (http://www.pps.k12.pa.us/14311071716911330/lib/14311071716911330/EducationCommitteeStimulusPlans_04.14.09.pdf To briefly summarize: • The district can receive up to $48.1 million over 2 years • Some of the funds will be used to sustain current programming and class sizes • Retain key special education positions that would otherwise have been eliminated due to declining enrollment • Hire additional curriculum specialists to customize core curriculum for special needs • Hire additional positive behavior intervention specialists • Use a majority of the funds to increase achievement and engagement (focusing on middle school years) through o Intense literacy intervention o Summer enrichment program This presentation was followed by questions from the school board members: Heather Arnet: Are there opportunities to cross pollinate other PPS programs around the Sci Tech problem solving techniques? (did not record Mark Roosevelt’s (MR) response) Mark Brentley (MB): Where so you see the role of the school board in your administration? MR: As a policy making, deliberative board we are charged by you with certain objectives and seek approval or redirection or rejection. MB: We did not have a meeting of the board to discuss distribution of funds. We are told “Here is the plan-react.” As usual, we are predented with “What we are going to do is this…” You don’t need a board. Money comes-you spend it. Something goes wrong, blame it on low enrollment. I want to be respectful but you haven’t finished anything that you have started. Look at CEP. We know that it is failing. These students are victims. This is your wishlist, but it doesn’t work that way, some of us have something to say. Why not go back to make sure that we repair holes from closing schools. Why not go back to the East End where they still don’t have a large school in the area. Let’s go back and reevaluate and readjust. Look at the article in the PG about ALA-we promised those students low teacher turnover. Morale among teachers is extremely low. All of your initiatives are top down-equity is most important. Thomas Sumpter (TS): This is that opportunity, to discuss what board members want. MB: We should be able to address the issue first. TS: I encourage you that we have the option to vote up or down and put forth recommendations. MS: We need collaborative dialogue. Jean Fink (JF): Is there money for renovation? MR: There is the issue of a “bonding authority” to be settled. We have access to money that we owe that can be spent interest free. JF: When we find a permanent home for the IB program, we are looking at extensive renovations. MR: Moving the IB program is three years off. What I understand is a high priority of this board (Career and Technology Education) CTE programming and I recommend using bonding money for that. Randall Taylor (RT): Who said IB is moving in three years and not one year or two years? Is that a unilateral decision? MR: That was a mistake, it has not been voted on, but we could not facilitate a move in one year. RT: Why can’t they stay at Reizenstein? MR: That is something that the board can consider. Sherry Hazuda (SH): Can we use stimulus funds for CTE? MR: No. Bill Isler (BI):$48.1 million is the max that we can receive? MR: There is an additional, marginal amount. BI: Is that competitive funds? MR: There are more funds plus competitive funds. BI: $48.1 million cannot be used for renovation? Chris Berdnik (CB): The board can choose to use general stimulus funds for modernization (total $18.2 million) Theresa Colaizzi (TC): We need to be clearer on what we are and are not allowed to do-we are depending on staff to know what to do-not very much money that we can spend however we want to.. MR: There are guidelines for spending. TC: Are we getting a pot of money all at one time? MR: About 70% in July and 30% a few months later. TC: I can’t say how to spend money, that’s why we pay everyone around this table. But here are a few suggestions: • I am concerned about the AM time period of the summer enrichment program. Kids don’t want to go to bed and wake up early in the summer. • Is there an evaluation tool built in? MR: We want to get students involved, but even if we make it mandatory, what are the repercussions of not attending? The program will absolutely have diagnostics. Floyd McCrea (FM): The alarm systems in some of our buildings are starting to collapse, we should use stimulus funds to improve. Will the stimulus money inflate our budget? CB: Yes. RT: It is incredible that we are talking about the needs of buildings after 10s of millions of dollars have been spent. Why wasn’t some of this done before spending money on Kaplan and $60 million on construction? MR: When you have money like this, it will build on the work of the last three years. Without that work, this would not be the next step. Because of hard votes that have kept the budget flat, we don’t have to use this money to patch holes. You have advocated for extended learning and I agree. RT: This is not flat spending when we have spent $80 million on construction, programming, books, and curriculum. Is this the plan? MR: This is a powerpoint presentation of the plan. RT: There are no specifics. Is this all we will receive? MR: No, and it is not all that you have received. There will be additional materials. We voted on three hires last meeting. RT: The first step as a responsible board is to independently evaluate work that has been done instead of depending on the admin. To self evaluate. I fear that we will be heavy consumers of the education industry. We need a diagnostic tool for struggling teachers. I remain highly skeptical and look forward to seeing detailed information. There is huge lack of accountability regarding ALAs. Information was denied board members regarding retirements, transfers from ALAs. We went to the union for a three year commitment, but the admin. Knew that there was no stability at the ALAs. We paid $10,000 extra for the extended 3 year contract. I hope to have ALAs placed on the agenda. TS: We did have a meeting on ALAs at which Mr. Taylor was not present. PURE Reform NOTE: The presentation from this meeting seems to be at http://www.pps.k12.pa.us/14311059122535553/lib/14311059122535553/Education%20Committee/052008ALA.pdf . MR then stated that we are making good academic progress and that 3rd grade PSSA reading scores across the district have increased 31%. PURE Reform NOTE: PURE Reform contacted PPS for more information on the source of the 31% improvement figure. The source is a presentation from the August 2008 educational committee meeting showing a 3-year increase from 2005-2008 in the percentage of 3rd graders advanced or proficient. The same report shows which grades from 4-8 and grade 11 had increases, decreases or flat results in proficiency. The report is at http://www.pps.k12.pa.us/14311059122535553/lib/14311059122535553/Education%20Committee/052008PSSA.pdf .

Mission Statement

Announcements

Featured Topics

Three Year Review of District Initiatives

Questions About High School Reform

Blog

Links

Transparency
Watch

Educational Committee Meeting
April 14, 2009

The meeting started with Mark Roosevelt giving a PowerPoint presentation regarding the district’s planned use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARA) federal funds. (http://www.pps.k12.pa.us/14311071716911330/lib/14311071716911330/EducationCommitteeStimulusPlans_04.14.09.pdf

To briefly summarize:

• The district can receive up to $48.1 million over 2 years

• Some of the funds will be used to sustain current programming and class sizes

• Retain key special education positions that would otherwise have been eliminated due to declining enrollment • Hire additional curriculum specialists to customize core curriculum for special needs

• Hire additional positive behavior intervention specialists

• Use a majority of the funds to increase achievement and engagement (focusing on middle school years) through

o Intense literacy intervention

o Summer enrichment program

This presentation was followed by questions from the school board members:

Heather Arnet: Are there opportunities to cross pollinate other PPS programs around the Sci Tech problem solving techniques? (did not record Mark Roosevelt’s (MR) response)

Mark Brentley (MB): Where so you see the role of the school board in your administration?

MR: As a policy making, deliberative board we are charged by you with certain objectives and seek approval or redirection or rejection.

MB: We did not have a meeting of the board to discuss distribution of funds. We are told “Here is the plan-react.” As usual, we are predented with “What we are going to do is this…” You don’t need a board. Money comes-you spend it. Something goes wrong, blame it on low enrollment. I want to be respectful but you haven’t finished anything that you have started. Look at CEP. We know that it is failing. These students are victims.

This is your wishlist, but it doesn’t work that way, some of us have something to say. Why not go back to make sure that we repair holes from closing schools. Why not go back to the East End where they still don’t have a large school in the area. Let’s go back and reevaluate and readjust. Look at the article in the PG about ALA-we promised those students low teacher turnover. Morale among teachers is extremely low. All of your initiatives are top down-equity is most important.

Thomas Sumpter (TS): This is that opportunity, to discuss what board members want.

MB: We should be able to address the issue first.

TS: I encourage you that we have the option to vote up or down and put forth recommendations.

MS: We need collaborative dialogue.

Jean Fink (JF): Is there money for renovation?

MR: There is the issue of a “bonding authority” to be settled. We have access to money that we owe that can be spent interest free.

JF: When we find a permanent home for the IB program, we are looking at extensive renovations.

MR: Moving the IB program is three years off. What I understand is a high priority of this board (Career and Technology Education) CTE programming and I recommend using bonding money for that.

Randall Taylor (RT): Who said IB is moving in three years and not one year or two years? Is that a unilateral decision?

MR: That was a mistake, it has not been voted on, but we could not facilitate a move in one year.

RT: Why can’t they stay at Reizenstein?

MR: That is something that the board can consider.

Sherry Hazuda (SH): Can we use stimulus funds for CTE?

MR: No.

Bill Isler (BI):$48.1 million is the max that we can receive?

MR: There is an additional, marginal amount.

BI: Is that competitive funds?

MR: There are more funds plus competitive funds.

BI: $48.1 million cannot be used for renovation?

Chris Berdnik (CB): The board can choose to use general stimulus funds for modernization (total $18.2 million)

Theresa Colaizzi (TC): We need to be clearer on what we are and are not allowed to do-we are depending on staff to know what to do-not very much money that we can spend however we want to..

MR: There are guidelines for spending.

TC: Are we getting a pot of money all at one time?

MR: About 70% in July and 30% a few months later.

TC: I can’t say how to spend money, that’s why we pay everyone around this table. But here are a few suggestions:

• I am concerned about the AM time period of the summer enrichment program. Kids don’t want to go to bed and wake up early in the summer.

• Is there an evaluation tool built in?

MR: We want to get students involved, but even if we make it mandatory, what are the repercussions of not attending? The program will absolutely have diagnostics.

Floyd McCrea (FM): The alarm systems in some of our buildings are starting to collapse, we should use stimulus funds to improve. Will the stimulus money inflate our budget?

CB: Yes.

RT: It is incredible that we are talking about the needs of buildings after 10s of millions of dollars have been spent. Why wasn’t some of this done before spending money on Kaplan and $60 million on construction?

MR: When you have money like this, it will build on the work of the last three years. Without that work, this would not be the next step. Because of hard votes that have kept the budget flat, we don’t have to use this money to patch holes. You have advocated for extended learning and I agree.

RT: This is not flat spending when we have spent $80 million on construction, programming, books, and curriculum. Is this the plan?

MR: This is a powerpoint presentation of the plan.

RT: There are no specifics. Is this all we will receive?

MR: No, and it is not all that you have received. There will be additional materials. We voted on three hires last meeting.

RT: The first step as a responsible board is to independently evaluate work that has been done instead of depending on the admin. To self evaluate. I fear that we will be heavy consumers of the education industry. We need a diagnostic tool for struggling teachers. I remain highly skeptical and look forward to seeing detailed information. There is huge lack of accountability regarding ALAs. Information was denied board members regarding retirements, transfers from ALAs. We went to the union for a three year commitment, but the admin. Knew that there was no stability at the ALAs. We paid $10,000 extra for the extended 3 year contract. I hope to have ALAs placed on the agenda.

TS: We did have a meeting on ALAs at which Mr. Taylor was not present.

PURE Reform NOTE: The presentation from this meeting seems to be at http://www.pps.k12.pa.us/14311059122535553/lib/14311059122535553/Education%20Committee/052008ALA.pdf .

MR then stated that we are making good academic progress and that 3rd grade PSSA reading scores across the district have increased 31%.

PURE Reform NOTE: PURE Reform contacted PPS for more information on the source of the 31% improvement figure. The source is a presentation from the August 2008 educational committee meeting showing a 3-year increase from 2005-2008 in the percentage of 3rd graders advanced or proficient. The same report shows which grades from 4-8 and grade 11 had increases, decreases or flat results in proficiency. The report is at http://www.pps.k12.pa.us/14311059122535553/lib/14311059122535553/Education%20Committee/052008PSSA.pdf .