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 May 18, 2009 Testimony (corrected) of Annette Werner: I would like to put in a word in favor of the work of GASP and in favor of recycling in Pittsburgh Public Schools. I will be focusing, however, on enrollment numbers. The population of children under the age of 18 in the city of Pittsburgh in 2014 is projected to be about 63,000, or 95% of the 66,500 children under age 18 in the year 2000. Although we are often told that our city is shrinking this 95% figure makes sense, because state Department of Health figures show that the number of live births in Pittsburgh leveled off after the year 2001. However, the number of children enrolled in noncharter Pittsburgh public schools is projected to drop much more sharply- from about 38,500 in 2000 to about 25,000 in 2014. So, while the number of children will have dropped by only 5%, enrollment will have suffered a 35% drop from the year 2000 to the year 2014. Looking more closely at current figures, the population of school-aged children in the city of Pittsburgh, that is, children age 6 through 17, is projected to be about 43,000 in 2010. DeJong’s projected non-charter Pittsburgh public school enrollment for the 2009-2010 school year is only about 27,000. This means that there are projected to be about 16,000 school age children in Pittsburgh, or about 37% of all school age children, who have either dropped out, enrolled in a private school or enrolled in a charter school. That number is projected to increase to 17,000 (40%) in the year 2014. In other words, we are expecting that over the next 5 years an increasing percentage of children will either drop out, choose charter schools or choose private schools. I believe that this is unacceptable. Before we rush to close schools and make decreasing enrollment a self-fulfilling prophecy we need to stop and ask families, what would it take to convince you to choose a Pittsburgh public school? We might start by looking at where there are long waiting lists- for example, at CAPA, the sci tech school and City Charter High School. Perhaps for example the sci tech school should be in a building that would allow it to support 600 rather than 400 students in grades 9-12. The fact that popular schools tend to be centrally located also should not be ignored. In addition, we need to ask whether, given these low enrollment projections, we are serious about reducing the dropout rate. And finally, if we expect that increasing numbers of students will enroll in charter schools, we must take these students into account as we make plans for facilities. It makes no sense on the one hand to exclude charter students from enrollment projections but on the other hand give no thought as to whether and where facilities will be available for these students. Kathy Fine Good Evening School Board Directors, Mr. Roosevelt and District employees. I am here with another installment of “Transparency Watch”. I would like to thank the district for their response to the issues that we presented at the March public hearing and for working with us to better inform our parents. Regarding the issues presented in March, we have the following comments: • Although the administration responded with a general outline of the goals for the new University Prep school, what we are asking for are the details of the arrangement between PPS and the University of Pittsburgh. We were told that there is a Memorandum of Understanding between Pitt and the PPS, but were not presented with this memorandum or the details of the arrangement. • The administration responded to our request for information regarding expenditure of the ARRA monies. However, the response was a general overview that has already been presented at the last EFA meeting. We are requesting that, in the spirit of full transparency, the PPS follow the example of the State and Federal governments and post all expenditures that utilize ARRA money online. • The administration presented us with the information that they have used to validate the reconfiguration of our High Schools as 6-12 grade facilities. While the newspaper articles and task for summaries cited seem to support the 6-12 grade format, there were no academic studies to support the format. I have attached the abstract from a study done at the Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy at Columbia University that shows that the 6-12 format has little impact on academic and non-academic student outcomes. I will wait to address the transparency issues raised at the April public hearing as I have not yet received a response from the administration. Let me turn now to new items that we would like to have addressed: • A large portion of ARRA funds will be spent on middle years summer programs. When will the details of the summer literacy camp be available? How will the district ensure that the students most in need of this program actually attend? • When will there be an update on how the district is doing w/ excellence for all goals i.e. # of students taking AP exams, # of AA students taking AP exams, # of students scoring 3-5 on AP exams, # of students graduating? • In the true spirit of transparency, committees that are formed by the administration to address various reform issues should include people with all perspectives and opinions. We request that the formation of these committees be announced in advance and that all stakeholders have an opportunity to participate and that these meetings be open for the public to observe. • When will a high school facilities plan complete with names and locations of buildings rather than general descriptions such as 3 comprehensive or 5 comprehensive schools be provided for public review and comment? In addition, it seems like some buildings may be ruled out for future use based on replacement cost compared to a general "build new" amount per square foot that does not consider the location or quality of the new building. Calculations and underlying assumptions of this cost comparison should be provided. • When will the results of the March community dialogue held a month and a half ago be posted- at the meeting we were told they would be on the Building Excellence website. Thanks again for the opportunity to present these important issues and we look forward to the administration’s response to these and last month’s issues.

Mission Statement

Announcements

Featured Topics

Three Year Review of District Initiatives

Questions About High School Reform

Blog

Links

Transparency
Watch

Public Hearing
May 18, 2009

Testimony (corrected) of Annette Werner:

I would like to put in a word in favor of the work of GASP and in favor of recycling in Pittsburgh Public Schools. I will be focusing, however, on enrollment numbers.

The population of children under the age of 18 in the city of Pittsburgh in 2014 is projected to be about 63,000, or 95% of the 66,500 children under age 18 in the year 2000. Although we are often told that our city is shrinking this 95% figure makes sense, because state Department of Health figures show that the number of live births in Pittsburgh leveled off after the year 2001.

However, the number of children enrolled in noncharter Pittsburgh public schools is projected to drop much more sharply- from about 38,500 in 2000 to about 25,000 in 2014. So, while the number of children will have dropped by only 5%, enrollment will have suffered a 35% drop from the year 2000 to the year 2014.

Looking more closely at current figures, the population of school-aged children in the city of Pittsburgh, that is, children age 6 through 17, is projected to be about 43,000 in 2010. DeJong’s projected non-charter Pittsburgh public school enrollment for the 2009-2010 school year is only about 27,000.

This means that there are projected to be about 16,000 school age children in Pittsburgh, or about 37% of all school age children, who have either dropped out, enrolled in a private school or enrolled in a charter school. That number is projected to increase to 17,000 (40%) in the year 2014. In other words, we are expecting that over the next 5 years an increasing percentage of children will either drop out, choose charter schools or choose private schools.

I believe that this is unacceptable. Before we rush to close schools and make decreasing enrollment a self-fulfilling prophecy we need to stop and ask families, what would it take to convince you to choose a Pittsburgh public school?

We might start by looking at where there are long waiting lists- for example, at CAPA, the sci tech school and City Charter High School. Perhaps for example the sci tech school should be in a building that would allow it to support 600 rather than 400 students in grades 9-12. The fact that popular schools tend to be centrally located also should not be ignored. In addition, we need to ask whether, given these low enrollment projections, we are serious about reducing the dropout rate. And finally, if we expect that increasing numbers of students will enroll in charter schools, we must take these students into account as we make plans for facilities. It makes no sense on the one hand to exclude charter students from enrollment projections but on the other hand give no thought as to whether and where facilities will be available for these students.

Kathy Fine

Good Evening School Board Directors, Mr. Roosevelt and District employees. I am here with another installment of “Transparency Watch”. I would like to thank the district for their response to the issues that we presented at the March public hearing and for working with us to better inform our parents.

Regarding the issues presented in March, we have the following comments:

• Although the administration responded with a general outline of the goals for the new University Prep school, what we are asking for are the details of the arrangement between PPS and the University of Pittsburgh. We were told that there is a Memorandum of Understanding between Pitt and the PPS, but were not presented with this memorandum or the details of the arrangement.

• The administration responded to our request for information regarding expenditure of the ARRA monies. However, the response was a general overview that has already been presented at the last EFA meeting. We are requesting that, in the spirit of full transparency, the PPS follow the example of the State and Federal governments and post all expenditures that utilize ARRA money online.

• The administration presented us with the information that they have used to validate the reconfiguration of our High Schools as 6-12 grade facilities. While the newspaper articles and task for summaries cited seem to support the 6-12 grade format, there were no academic studies to support the format. I have attached the abstract from a study done at the Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy at Columbia University that shows that the 6-12 format has little impact on academic and non-academic student outcomes.

I will wait to address the transparency issues raised at the April public hearing as I have not yet received a response from the administration. Let me turn now to new items that we would like to have addressed:

• A large portion of ARRA funds will be spent on middle years summer programs. When will the details of the summer literacy camp be available? How will the district ensure that the students most in need of this program actually attend?

• When will there be an update on how the district is doing w/ excellence for all goals i.e. # of students taking AP exams, # of AA students taking AP exams, # of students scoring 3-5 on AP exams, # of students graduating?

• In the true spirit of transparency, committees that are formed by the administration to address various reform issues should include people with all perspectives and opinions. We request that the formation of these committees be announced in advance and that all stakeholders have an opportunity to participate and that these meetings be open for the public to observe.

• When will a high school facilities plan complete with names and locations of buildings rather than general descriptions such as 3 comprehensive or 5 comprehensive schools be provided for public review and comment? In addition, it seems like some buildings may be ruled out for future use based on replacement cost compared to a general "build new" amount per square foot that does not consider the location or quality of the new building. Calculations and underlying assumptions of this cost comparison should be provided.

• When will the results of the March community dialogue held a month and a half ago be posted- at the meeting we were told they would be on the Building Excellence website.

Thanks again for the opportunity to present these important issues and we look forward to the administration’s response to these and last month’s issues.