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
February 16, 2009 PPS Public Hearing Kathy Fine As I look around this room this evening, I see many people that are dedicating large parts of their lives to the noble cause of quality education for all children. I see faces intent on making our schools safe places for learning and growing. I see hope for our public schools. I have come in front of this board many times over the last year asking for two things that are paramount in a thriving democratic body; transparency and stakeholder participation. I realize that building consensus is quite difficult, especially with an entity as large as the Pittsburgh Public Schools. Too many people are focused on what is best for their individual child or their child’s school and are not able to look at the big picture. But this difficulty should not be a rationale for bypassing the community engagement process altogether. There are many in the community with valuable input and important concerns that should be a part the discussion before major decisions are made. Far too often, community engagement is sought when it is too late to be meaningfully considered. Open government is also essential for a healthy relationship between the governors and the governed. Decisions being made behind closed doors, political dealing and using the bully pulpit to manipulate public opinion all serve to build a layer of distrust that will ultimately stall or destroy true educational reform. The closing of Schenley, the selection process for the new IB site without communities represented, the unavailability of evaluations of Community Education Partners, and the 50% minimum grading policy are just a few examples of the planning processes that are eroding public confidence in the PPS reform process, overshadowing any progress that might be made. Over the last several months, I have heard our organization referred to in not so flattering terms. I have seen attempts to marginalize our efforts. Hearing these remarks makes me more than a little sad. PURE Reform has no secret agenda. I will soon have no children in the PPS. I have volunteered as a tutor, lunch lady, mentor, and school board campaign manager, all for one single purpose. To contribute in a positive fashion ensuring that the richest, the poorest and those in the middle, the strongest and the weakest, the brown, black and white all get the education that they need to be productive citizens. Together, we can build that world class educational system that I campaigned for in both Patrick Dowd’s and Heather Arnet’s school board runs. Please, call us all to the table. As partners, not adversaries, we can ensure that we are doing the best for all of our children. No single person has all of the answers, but together, we are a powerful force. Annette Werner I’ll echo Kathy and emphasize that the last thing we want is an adversarial relationship. We’re looking for solutions that are best for the district and the city. We do feel that the best way to arrive at those solutions is through transparency and real public participation In that spirit we would like to discuss Schenley and its possible role in a comprehensive plan for high schools in the east end. And we would ask you to truly keep an open mind on this issue, because with new information and new sources of funding new possibilities may present themselves. One piece of new information is the discovery of other schools with extensive asbestos plaster that are still in use. No two schools are exactly alike, but is there something we can learn from the management of those buildings that would be useful for Schenley? For example, we know that the asbestos plaster ceilings were removed at McKelvy. The fact that all of the ceilings were removed would indicate that there were more than isolated problems at that building. Interestingly, district materials indicate that the removal of asbestos plaster ceilings at Schenley was included as part of the 2004 capital budget, at a cost of $2.3M. However, the ceilings were not removed, some small areas of plaster fell and we all know how things went from there. What if we were now to remove the ceilings and, as with McKelvy, monitor the wall plaster and repair it as needed? It is difficult to image that the walls are in worse shape than the walls at McKelvy were in 1994, when that year’s AHERA report showed wall damage ranging from 5 to 10 to 25% in many of the rooms, yet those walls have apparently been successfully managed for 15 years now. At Schenley, an Astorino report from 2006 and an AGX report from Fall 2007 stated that most of the plaster was in good condition. We can speculate on how the situations may or may not be different, but why not settle the matter by having an independent expert inspect the plaster to give us a definitive answer? In support of such an inspection we have here a petition signed by 150 city residents requesting an independent evaluation of the plaster at 4 city schools. Let me briefly address the issue of ventilation and mechanical systems. Systems at ALL of these schools are presumably beyond their useful lives and can go at any time. In the case of the Schenley intake system no one from facilities has been able to tell us for sure that system does not work, just that it has been turned off for 10 years. The Astorino materials mentioned that a “tempered ventilation” system that would bring the building up to code can be purchased for as little as $78,000. Another possibility might be running new ducts through the existing ducts. An entirely different solution was proposed by the building task force, which showed how for $42M asbestos hazards could be addressed and all new mechanical systems as well as air conditioning could be installed. $42M is still a large sum, but perhaps some amount could be budgeted each of the next 3 years, with additional money from PlanCon and the economic stimulus package. At the very least we would want to know what the alternatives will cost. Just as other schools might teach us something about Schenley, the Schenley situation might teach us something about the other schools. At Schenley in the summer of 2007 an aggressive plaster monitoring and maintenance program was put into place. Since all of these buildings have at one time or another required emergency plaster repairs, why not adopt this same maintenance program for each school? To answer these questions we ask you to give real consideration to the request of the many petitioners from all over the city who are calling for an immediate independent inspection and evaluation of these schools.

February 16, 2009

PPS Public Hearing

Kathy Fine

As I look around this room this evening, I see many people that are dedicating large parts of their lives to the noble cause of quality education for all children. I see faces intent on making our schools safe places for learning and growing. I see hope for our public schools.

I have come in front of this board many times over the last year asking for two things that are paramount in a thriving democratic body; transparency and stakeholder participation. I realize that building consensus is quite difficult, especially with an entity as large as the Pittsburgh Public Schools. Too many people are focused on what is best for their individual child or their child’s school and are not able to look at the big picture. But this difficulty should not be a rationale for bypassing the community engagement process altogether. There are many in the community with valuable input and important concerns that should be a part the discussion before major decisions are made. Far too often, community engagement is sought when it is too late to be meaningfully considered.

Open government is also essential for a healthy relationship between the governors and the governed. Decisions being made behind closed doors, political dealing and using the bully pulpit to manipulate public opinion all serve to build a layer of distrust that will ultimately stall or destroy true educational reform. The closing of Schenley, the selection process for the new IB site without communities represented, the unavailability of evaluations of Community Education Partners, and the 50% minimum grading policy are just a few examples of the planning processes that are eroding public confidence in the PPS reform process, overshadowing any progress that might be made.

Over the last several months, I have heard our organization referred to in not so flattering terms. I have seen attempts to marginalize our efforts. Hearing these remarks makes me more than a little sad. PURE Reform has no secret agenda. I will soon have no children in the PPS. I have volunteered as a tutor, lunch lady, mentor, and school board campaign manager, all for one single purpose. To contribute in a positive fashion ensuring that the richest, the poorest and those in the middle, the strongest and the weakest, the brown, black and white all get the education that they need to be productive citizens.

Together, we can build that world class educational system that I campaigned for in both Patrick Dowd’s and Heather Arnet’s school board runs. Please, call us all to the table. As partners, not adversaries, we can ensure that we are doing the best for all of our children. No single person has all of the answers, but together, we are a powerful force.

Annette Werner

I’ll echo Kathy and emphasize that the last thing we want is an adversarial relationship. We’re looking for solutions that are best for the district and the city. We do feel that the best way to arrive at those solutions is through transparency and real public participation

In that spirit we would like to discuss Schenley and its possible role in a comprehensive plan for high schools in the east end. And we would ask you to truly keep an open mind on this issue, because with new information and new sources of funding new possibilities may present themselves.

One piece of new information is the discovery of other schools with extensive asbestos plaster that are still in use. No two schools are exactly alike, but is there something we can learn from the management of those buildings that would be useful for Schenley? For example, we know that the asbestos plaster ceilings were removed at McKelvy. The fact that all of the ceilings were removed would indicate that there were more than isolated problems at that building. Interestingly, district materials indicate that the removal of asbestos plaster ceilings at Schenley was included as part of the 2004 capital budget, at a cost of $2.3M. However, the ceilings were not removed, some small areas of plaster fell and we all know how things went from there.

What if we were now to remove the ceilings and, as with McKelvy, monitor the wall plaster and repair it as needed? It is difficult to image that the walls are in worse shape than the walls at McKelvy were in 1994, when that year’s AHERA report showed wall damage ranging from 5 to 10 to 25% in many of the rooms, yet those walls have apparently been successfully managed for 15 years now. At Schenley, an Astorino report from 2006 and an AGX report from Fall 2007 stated that most of the plaster was in good condition. We can speculate on how the situations may or may not be different, but why not settle the matter by having an independent expert inspect the plaster to give us a definitive answer? In support of such an inspection we have here a petition signed by 150 city residents requesting an independent evaluation of the plaster at 4 city schools.

Let me briefly address the issue of ventilation and mechanical systems. Systems at ALL of these schools are presumably beyond their useful lives and can go at any time. In the case of the Schenley intake system no one from facilities has been able to tell us for sure that system does not work, just that it has been turned off for 10 years. The Astorino materials mentioned that a “tempered ventilation” system that would bring the building up to code can be purchased for as little as $78,000. Another possibility might be running new ducts through the existing ducts. An entirely different solution was proposed by the building task force, which showed how for $42M asbestos hazards could be addressed and all new mechanical systems as well as air conditioning could be installed. $42M is still a large sum, but perhaps some amount could be budgeted each of the next 3 years, with additional money from PlanCon and the economic stimulus package. At the very least we would want to know what the alternatives will cost.

Just as other schools might teach us something about Schenley, the Schenley situation might teach us something about the other schools. At Schenley in the summer of 2007 an aggressive plaster monitoring and maintenance program was put into place. Since all of these buildings have at one time or another required emergency plaster repairs, why not adopt this same maintenance program for each school? To answer these questions we ask you to give real consideration to the request of the many petitioners from all over the city who are calling for an immediate independent inspection and evaluation of these schools.