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
Public Hearing April 20, 2009 Testimony of Kathy Fine Good Evening School Board Directors, Mr. Roosevelt and District employees. I am here once again to discuss transparency in our reform process because my dedication to public education compels me to work for better public schools. As a founding member of the public school advocacy group, PURE Reform, I am here with another installment of “Transparency Watch” as a way for the board members to better understand the concerns many PPS stakeholders have regarding the reform process. Let me begin by reviewing last month’s “Transparency Watch”. I will begin with the items that have been addressed by the administration and I thank them for working with us to better inform our parents. • CEP- Information on an evaluation is now available on the PPS website. However, after review of this evaluation, questions over the effectiveness of this very expensive program remain and should be a concern to each and every board member. • Magnet lottery procedures and Stimulus package money- Informational sessions were provided at the last EFA steering committee meeting and two general parent meetings. I would like to add that because the sessions were scheduled over spring break and over the Jewish holiday, posting the presentation on the PPS website would have made it available to more parents. The items that remain outstanding from last month are: • Evidence supporting the Grade 6 – 12 Format • The details of the arrangement between PPS and the University of Pittsburgh regarding University Prep Let me turn now to new items that we would like to be addressed: • School enrollment information is no longer being updated monthly. We understand that an overhaul of the websites is planned to be completed for fall, but there does not seem to be any reason not to update information in the meantime • The PPS Parent hotline will not confirm or deny that elimination of CAS is being considered- they will only say that there are no plans at the current time to discontinue the program • The committee formed to examine the future of Peabody High School was by “invitation only”, shutting out many in the East End community. In addition, the public is not even permitted to observe these meetings. • In June of 2008 this school board voted to form a committee to examine the future of Schenley High School. To date that committee has not been formed. • We were told several months ago that an assessment of the parent engagement strategies at the ALAs was under way. We are anxious to get the results of that evaluation as parent engagement is essential to the success of our students. True parent engagement should be school-based, especially considering the population of PPS parents, many of whom must use public transportation. The movement towards a “school choice” model, if there is no local school option, will only serve to further disenfranchise parents with no access to schools that are located far from their homes. As usual, I thank everyone in this room for their service in the name of quality education for all children. Testimony of Annette Werner Good evening. I’m going to discuss school configuration rather than the topics originally listed. Many of us have been thinking a lot lately about the best arrangement for high schools in Pittsburgh. My thought is that despite changing conditions, we should avoid settling for a makeshift arrangement and should instead strive for one that is logical, balanced and will stand the test of time as conditions continue to change in ways that we at this time may not even begin to imagine. The one plan that has emerged after discussions with many people would entail creating a “central mecca” of specialized grade 6-12 schools- the sci tech school, University Prep and, between them, the IB program in that large empty school building in Oakland. In this way the specialized schools would be available to the entire city. It is also fitting for these schools that are based around a particular academic focus to be located near the city’s universities, museums and main library. The three schools could join together to offer students a full range of sports and activities, including many opportunities that sci tech and U Prep students have no real chance of participating in as things stand currently. Not all students will want to travel outside their home areas, however, and those willing to travel may not “win the lottery.” For these students a priority should be to provide a readily accessible local option- a comprehensive school, a CTE academy with strong academics, or a combination comprehensive and CTE school that students can reach without distance, transportation or safety issues. A yellow bus is not a sufficient answer to transportation issues if there is not also good backup public transportation. Students miss buses and may need to arrive late or leave early, and the many parents without cars cannot drive these students to school. These same parents will find it difficult to become engaged in a school they cannot reach on foot or by public transportation. Most areas already have a good local high school option, but access issues would arise if for example Peabody area students not accepted into a school of choice are assigned to Westinghouse. We hear a lot about equity- whether one school has an inferior gym, for example, or another has not been renovated recently- but an even more basic issue of equity would be to leave one or two areas of the city without a high school that students and parents can easily access regardless of how they do in a lottery. PRINT VERSION ONLY DUE TO TIME LIMITATIONS: [As for that large school building in Oakland- look to the example of other similar schools when questions about the condition of this irreplaceable asset are raised. We recently learned for example that ventilation has been updated in other schools without removal of large amounts of plaster. Or, for an economical comprehensive renovation, look to the advice of the building’s task force. Also keep in mind that this building would have space for the IB program and something more. One option would be a center for literacy which, recognizing that students spend far more time in their homes and communities than in their schools, could focus intensively on efforts which involve parents and communities. Again, proximity to the main library would be a real plus.] Ten years from now no one will remember who proposed what plan- all that will matter is whether we have an arrangement that works or one that is driving students and families away from our district and our city. And so, as the administration works for us in formulating a plan for the future, I urge the board to give this proposal for central and local options a fair hearing as it evaluates what arrangement will provide the strongest, most balanced and most flexible foundation going forward.

Mission Statement

Announcements

Featured Topics

Three Year Review of District Initiatives

Questions About High School Reform

Blog

Links

Transparency
Watch

Public Hearing
April 20, 2009

Testimony of Kathy Fine

Good Evening School Board Directors, Mr. Roosevelt and District employees. I am here once again to discuss transparency in our reform process because my dedication to public education compels me to work for better public schools.

As a founding member of the public school advocacy group, PURE Reform, I am here with another installment of “Transparency Watch” as a way for the board members to better understand the concerns many PPS stakeholders have regarding the reform process.

Let me begin by reviewing last month’s “Transparency Watch”. I will begin with the items that have been addressed by the administration and I thank them for working with us to better inform our parents.

• CEP- Information on an evaluation is now available on the PPS website. However, after review of this evaluation, questions over the effectiveness of this very expensive program remain and should be a concern to each and every board member.

• Magnet lottery procedures and Stimulus package money- Informational sessions were provided at the last EFA steering committee meeting and two general parent meetings. I would like to add that because the sessions were scheduled over spring break and over the Jewish holiday, posting the presentation on the PPS website would have made it available to more parents.

The items that remain outstanding from last month are:

• Evidence supporting the Grade 6 – 12 Format

• The details of the arrangement between PPS and the University of Pittsburgh regarding University Prep

Let me turn now to new items that we would like to be addressed:

• School enrollment information is no longer being updated monthly. We understand that an overhaul of the websites is planned to be completed for fall, but there does not seem to be any reason not to update information in the meantime

• The PPS Parent hotline will not confirm or deny that elimination of CAS is being considered- they will only say that there are no plans at the current time to discontinue the program

• The committee formed to examine the future of Peabody High School was by “invitation only”, shutting out many in the East End community. In addition, the public is not even permitted to observe these meetings.

• In June of 2008 this school board voted to form a committee to examine the future of Schenley High School. To date that committee has not been formed.

• We were told several months ago that an assessment of the parent engagement strategies at the ALAs was under way. We are anxious to get the results of that evaluation as parent engagement is essential to the success of our students. True parent engagement should be school-based, especially considering the population of PPS parents, many of whom must use public transportation. The movement towards a “school choice” model, if there is no local school option, will only serve to further disenfranchise parents with no access to schools that are located far from their homes.

As usual, I thank everyone in this room for their service in the name of quality education for all children.

Testimony of Annette Werner

Good evening. I’m going to discuss school configuration rather than the topics originally listed. Many of us have been thinking a lot lately about the best arrangement for high schools in Pittsburgh. My thought is that despite changing conditions, we should avoid settling for a makeshift arrangement and should instead strive for one that is logical, balanced and will stand the test of time as conditions continue to change in ways that we at this time may not even begin to imagine.

The one plan that has emerged after discussions with many people would entail creating a “central mecca” of specialized grade 6-12 schools- the sci tech school, University Prep and, between them, the IB program in that large empty school building in Oakland. In this way the specialized schools would be available to the entire city. It is also fitting for these schools that are based around a particular academic focus to be located near the city’s universities, museums and main library. The three schools could join together to offer students a full range of sports and activities, including many opportunities that sci tech and U Prep students have no real chance of participating in as things stand currently.

Not all students will want to travel outside their home areas, however, and those willing to travel may not “win the lottery.” For these students a priority should be to provide a readily accessible local option- a comprehensive school, a CTE academy with strong academics, or a combination comprehensive and CTE school that students can reach without distance, transportation or safety issues. A yellow bus is not a sufficient answer to transportation issues if there is not also good backup public transportation. Students miss buses and may need to arrive late or leave early, and the many parents without cars cannot drive these students to school. These same parents will find it difficult to become engaged in a school they cannot reach on foot or by public transportation. Most areas already have a good local high school option, but access issues would arise if for example Peabody area students not accepted into a school of choice are assigned to Westinghouse. We hear a lot about equity- whether one school has an inferior gym, for example, or another has not been renovated recently- but an even more basic issue of equity would be to leave one or two areas of the city without a high school that students and parents can easily access regardless of how they do in a lottery.

PRINT VERSION ONLY DUE TO TIME LIMITATIONS: [As for that large school building in Oakland- look to the example of other similar schools when questions about the condition of this irreplaceable asset are raised. We recently learned for example that ventilation has been updated in other schools without removal of large amounts of plaster. Or, for an economical comprehensive renovation, look to the advice of the building’s task force. Also keep in mind that this building would have space for the IB program and something more. One option would be a center for literacy which, recognizing that students spend far more time in their homes and communities than in their schools, could focus intensively on efforts which involve parents and communities. Again, proximity to the main library would be a real plus.]

Ten years from now no one will remember who proposed what plan- all that will matter is whether we have an arrangement that works or one that is driving students and families away from our district and our city. And so, as the administration works for us in formulating a plan for the future, I urge the board to give this proposal for central and local options a fair hearing as it evaluates what arrangement will provide the strongest, most balanced and most flexible foundation going forward.