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 Testimony Sue Mietzner December 8, 2008 “Comprehensive High Schools” I am a resident of Highland Park with one son in 12th grade at Shenley-Reizenstein and a second son in 9th grade at Frick. Both were extremely impacted by the board’s decision to close Schenley, but it is the younger one at Frick who is getting the “shorter end of the stick”. The more senior, experienced teachers were assigned to Reizenstein. Most of the other students in his instrumental class have never had any training so it is beginners all over for him. Part of his sports practice time in the afternoon is spent riding the bus. He is resentful at being treated as if he is still in middle school. These issues are representative of what will happen in the upcoming years when the only opportunities for the residents of the East End will be small, 6-12 theme based high schools. When discussions of a full choice model first started, it was proposed by former school board member, Patrick Dowd, that Allderdice would be open to enrollment for students outside of the Squirrel Hill feeder pattern so that a comprehensive, full service high school would be a choice for residents on the East end. Since then, that option has been removed and residents whose neighborhood high school is Peabody are left with the following options: decide in 6th grade whether your child should concentrate on an IB education or a Science education and pray that they get in to either of these small, selective programs. Or move to Squirrel Hill. The small theme based high school format leaves many questions that have yet to be answered. Why is the district telling parents and students at Peabody, Westinghouse and Oliver that because of the low enrollment at their schools (300-400 students), the district cannot offer a full array of academic and extracurricular opportunities, yet are then telling the potential parents and students at the IB and Sci-Tech schools that small schools (400-500 students) are the best way to offer students a quality education? How will the 6-8th grade sports teams and the 9-12 sports teams be able to share one gym at these facilities? What will be the transportation costs and the logistics be for schools that will have to combine sports teams, school play casts, and after school clubs because each individual school is too small to field their own teams, casts and clubs? Will there be fewer advanced level classes offered because of too few students? We are already hearing from East End residents who are moving to the suburbs or to other areas of the city because of the lack of high school options. Small theme-based schools are not for everybody, and we are loosing students that we cannot afford to lose because we are turning to this format without providing alternatives. We cannot call the proposals for high school reform a “choice model” when many city residents are left without a “choice” of a full service, comprehensive high school. We are asking that a complete overview of high school configurations be provided to the public and that all of the issues that have been raised over the creation of small theme-based high schools be addressed in a transparent and complete fashion before we offer a “choice model” that leaves many residents without any choice at all. *** Public Hearing Testimony Barb Daly Danko December 8, 2008 “Former Schenley Building Insurance” I am here today testifying on behalf of myself and as a parent affiliated with PURE. Several weeks ago I was watching the School Board meeting at home in my living room when the subject of changes in our insurance policy came up. As an at home viewer I would have been none the wiser, except that one Board Member asked what the two adds and one delete were on the insurance policy. The answer was that the Reizenstein building and the Milliones building were being added, and that the Schenley building was being deleted. Suffice to say I was shocked to hear that this Board would now carry no insurance on the Schenley building, not even catastrophic coverage. To me that means we are conceivably one burst pipe or one fire away from completely losing this beautiful building and all that it means to our community. The cynical side of me wonders if that could possibly be the objective of the Board or the School District Administration. We all know that the Schenley building has a historic designation. That designation protects buildings from demolition unless they become hazardous. Carrying no insurance simply hastens the day when Schenley will become hazardous, and the wrecking ball would not be far behind. I would love for this board to tell me that I am wrong, but actions speak louder than words. Most of us would consider it irresponsible for an absentee landlord to not carry insurance on a building. The school district should do no less. * * * Public Hearing Testimony Douglas Rabuzzi BOE Public Hearing Testimony December 8, 2008 “IB and Pittsburgh Peabody” As a parent of two IB students, I’ve been paying close attention for the past year or more to the discussions regarding the IB program and the signals, however subtle, coming from the Superintendent’s office, so the news that the site committee is recommending a permanent home for the IB school in the Peabody HS building was no surprise to me. However, I am sure it was a big surprise to most of the rest of the district, most importantly to the parents and students of Peabody HS itself. As you, the Board, consider this recommendation, please add the following to your discussions: • Neighborhood tension regarding the IB and former Schenley students in the Peabody area is already high. As you know, the Reizenstein facility does not have all the necessary amenities for a fully functioning high school. The current Reizenstein students use Peabody’s auditorium for the one-act play rehearsals, and will be using that space for upcoming band concerts and the spring musical. Just last week, a Schenley student on his way to rehearsal was assaulted and beaten by a Peabody student, simply for being a “Schenley student.” Security has apparently been increased, but that is a stop gap at best. With tensions like this while IB and Schenley students are simply borrowing Peabody facilities, one can only imagine how much worse it will get, following this recommendation, with IB and Schenley students likely seen as invaders who will take over the facilities full time. • Superintendent Roosevelt is quoted in the Post-Gazette, saying that by the time the IB school moves to Peabody, the current Peabody students will have graduated. Although true, this doesn’t address the fact that students who would otherwise be using Peabody as their neighborhood school will still be living in the area. It also doesn’t address that fact that there are rising middle schoolers in the Peabody feeder pattern. Are there plans to re-route those students elsewhere in the next year or so, and if so, when will they be made public? If there are no such plans, then the Superintendent’s comments are disingenuous, as those younger students will indeed be at Peabody for the transition. • Currently, students travel to Reizenstein on PAT transit. This is imperfect as it is, given the less than central location of the school. Peabody is, if anything, even less accessible by PAT, so transportation issues will arise with any such move. • Constituent involvement: If Peabody will be appropriated for use by the IB-only high school, please don’t just unilaterally reassign the current feeder pattern students. This will only breed resentment in the neighborhood for the IB students, who will be seen as invaders who “took” the neighborhood’s school away. Open and frank discussion with all the affected parties, especially the neighborhood families and the IB families, must be held. I urge that you, the Board, cause the administration to take a pro-active approach and seek input early and often on these issues. * * * Public Hearing Testimony Annette Werner December 8, 2008 “Budget/ Community Education Partners” I have a comment about the budget. I have heard many Board and staff members agree that the district could improve communication with the public, and I agree with that sentiment. For example, regarding the agreement with Community Education Partners, we still do not understand why this contract is so expensive and why this was a no-bid contract. If the agreement is renewed after 5 years under the automatic renewal provision it will cost about $5 M a year for 10 years, or $50 M. A lot could have been done with that money. We are also wondering about CEP’s performance and whether the arrangement has had the intended effect, since there still seem to be widespread complaints about discipline. My own question is whether for a one-time fee of maybe $1 million or so the district could have hired someone to teach existing district staff how to deal with these issues by expanding the program at the Student Achievement Center- for example by adding an additional location at a closed building. The Chinese proverb “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime” comes to mind. Instead of learning how to work with these students on its own, the district will feed CEP (and feed it well) for a lifetime. Another concern is that enrollment at CEP was expected to be over 400 students, but only 203 students are actually enrolled. It has been mentioned that CEP may give the district a break on this fee. Based on the January 2007 minutes, it seems that the Board can choose each fiscal year whether to continue the arrangement with Community Education Partners. If the Board continues to allocate funds the agreement continues unchanged. Most likely if any of us were paying for twice as much of a service as we were actually receiving, we would take steps to correct that arrangement. I hope the Board will ensure that the budget Right-Sizes this contract or else explain to us, the public and the taxpayers, why when funds are so tight we should continue to pay the same amount as if the school had full enrollment. * * * Public Hearing Testimony Kathy Fine December 8, 2008 “Parent Engagement Strategies” I am here this evening to discuss Parent Engagement and the strategies that the district is using to increase this essential component of increased student achievement. I was fortunate to have a long conversation with Mark Conner, who is heading up the parent engagement component of school reform for the district. He seems dedicated to increasing parent engagement and has the passion that I believe is necessary to tackle this monumental task. I am here to provide another prospective to solving the problem of lack of parent engagement. Although providing parent engagement sessions at different times of the day and in different locations throughout the district shows a consideration for parents with different schedules and travel restrictions, I do not believe that these efforts go far enough to address the enormous problems that we have with parents of at risk students. It is obvious that the district is aware that most of the problems with our school district from the racial achievement gap to loosing students to charter, private and suburban schools can be substantially addressed if we are able to engage the parents of struggling students. But periodic meetings will not cut it. We need to have school-based programs that draw parents to their children’s school. We need to have multiple opportunities throughout the week for parents to attend. We need to attract parents with food, free childcare and entertainment for their children and with give-aways that will entice parents to attend. We need to insure that all eligible students are attending pre-school. We need to replicate the Harlem Children’s Zone “Baby College” that provides parents of children ages 0-3 with the information that they need so that their children will have the adequate cognitive development and nutrition that will grow achieving students. The success of all of these efforts depends on involvement at the individual community level. We are all aware that we are a district in crisis. But to address this crisis, we need radical change at many levels. The change that addresses our at risk population and that will translate into better academic achievement for these students must include an intensive effort to engage parents where they live. The parent engagement efforts of the district should be commended, but we need to think bigger. Mr. Conner has a monumental task ahead of him, and I am asking each one of you, as board members, to make sure that the direction that the district takes regarding parent engagement is one that acknowledges the enormity of this issue and the dire consequences that we face if we fail.

Mission Statement

Announcements

Featured Topics

Three Year Review of District Initiatives

Questions About High School Reform

Blog

Links

Transparency
Watch

Public Hearing Testimony
Sue Mietzner
December 8, 2008
“Comprehensive High Schools”

I am a resident of Highland Park with one son in 12th grade at Shenley-Reizenstein and a second son in 9th grade at Frick. Both were extremely impacted by the board’s decision to close Schenley, but it is the younger one at Frick who is getting the “shorter end of the stick”. The more senior, experienced teachers were assigned to Reizenstein. Most of the other students in his instrumental class have never had any training so it is beginners all over for him. Part of his sports practice time in the afternoon is spent riding the bus. He is resentful at being treated as if he is still in middle school.

These issues are representative of what will happen in the upcoming years when the only opportunities for the residents of the East End will be small, 6-12 theme based high schools. When discussions of a full choice model first started, it was proposed by former school board member, Patrick Dowd, that Allderdice would be open to enrollment for students outside of the Squirrel Hill feeder pattern so that a comprehensive, full service high school would be a choice for residents on the East end. Since then, that option has been removed and residents whose neighborhood high school is Peabody are left with the following options: decide in 6th grade whether your child should concentrate on an IB education or a Science education and pray that they get in to either of these small, selective programs. Or move to Squirrel Hill.

The small theme based high school format leaves many questions that have yet to be answered. Why is the district telling parents and students at Peabody, Westinghouse and Oliver that because of the low enrollment at their schools (300-400 students), the district cannot offer a full array of academic and extracurricular opportunities, yet are then telling the potential parents and students at the IB and Sci-Tech schools that small schools (400-500 students) are the best way to offer students a quality education? How will the 6-8th grade sports teams and the 9-12 sports teams be able to share one gym at these facilities? What will be the transportation costs and the logistics be for schools that will have to combine sports teams, school play casts, and after school clubs because each individual school is too small to field their own teams, casts and clubs? Will there be fewer advanced level classes offered because of too few students?

We are already hearing from East End residents who are moving to the suburbs or to other areas of the city because of the lack of high school options. Small theme-based schools are not for everybody, and we are loosing students that we cannot afford to lose because we are turning to this format without providing alternatives. We cannot call the proposals for high school reform a “choice model” when many city residents are left without a “choice” of a full service, comprehensive high school. We are asking that a complete overview of high school configurations be provided to the public and that all of the issues that have been raised over the creation of small theme-based high schools be addressed in a transparent and complete fashion before we offer a “choice model” that leaves many residents without any choice at all.

***

Public Hearing Testimony
Barb Daly Danko
December 8, 2008
“Former Schenley Building Insurance”

I am here today testifying on behalf of myself and as a parent affiliated with PURE. Several weeks ago I was watching the School Board meeting at home in my living room when the subject of changes in our insurance policy came up. As an at home viewer I would have been none the wiser, except that one Board Member asked what the two adds and one delete were on the insurance policy. The answer was that the Reizenstein building and the Milliones building were being added, and that the Schenley building was being deleted.

Suffice to say I was shocked to hear that this Board would now carry no insurance on the Schenley building, not even catastrophic coverage. To me that means we are conceivably one burst pipe or one fire away from completely losing this beautiful building and all that it means to our community. The cynical side of me wonders if that could possibly be the objective of the Board or the School District Administration. We all know that the Schenley building has a historic designation. That designation protects buildings from demolition unless they become hazardous. Carrying no insurance simply hastens the day when Schenley will become hazardous, and the wrecking ball would not be far behind.

I would love for this board to tell me that I am wrong, but actions speak louder than words. Most of us would consider it irresponsible for an absentee landlord to not carry insurance on a building. The school district should do no less.

* * *

Public Hearing Testimony
Douglas Rabuzzi
BOE Public Hearing Testimony
December 8, 2008
“IB and Pittsburgh Peabody”

As a parent of two IB students, I’ve been paying close attention for the past year or more to the discussions regarding the IB program and the signals, however subtle, coming from the Superintendent’s office, so the news that the site committee is recommending a permanent home for the IB school in the Peabody HS building was no surprise to me. However, I am sure it was a big surprise to most of the rest of the district, most importantly to the parents and students of Peabody HS itself.

As you, the Board, consider this recommendation, please add the following to your discussions:

• Neighborhood tension regarding the IB and former Schenley students in the Peabody area is already high. As you know, the Reizenstein facility does not have all the necessary amenities for a fully functioning high school. The current Reizenstein students use Peabody’s auditorium for the one-act play rehearsals, and will be using that space for upcoming band concerts and the spring musical. Just last week, a Schenley student on his way to rehearsal was assaulted and beaten by a Peabody student, simply for being a “Schenley student.” Security has apparently been increased, but that is a stop gap at best. With tensions like this while IB and Schenley students are simply borrowing Peabody facilities, one can only imagine how much worse it will get, following this recommendation, with IB and Schenley students likely seen as invaders who will take over the facilities full time.

• Superintendent Roosevelt is quoted in the Post-Gazette, saying that by the time the IB school moves to Peabody, the current Peabody students will have graduated. Although true, this doesn’t address the fact that students who would otherwise be using Peabody as their neighborhood school will still be living in the area. It also doesn’t address that fact that there are rising middle schoolers in the Peabody feeder pattern. Are there plans to re-route those students elsewhere in the next year or so, and if so, when will they be made public? If there are no such plans, then the Superintendent’s comments are disingenuous, as those younger students will indeed be at Peabody for the transition.

• Currently, students travel to Reizenstein on PAT transit. This is imperfect as it is, given the less than central location of the school. Peabody is, if anything, even less accessible by PAT, so transportation issues will arise with any such move.

• Constituent involvement: If Peabody will be appropriated for use by the IB-only high school, please don’t just unilaterally reassign the current feeder pattern students. This will only breed resentment in the neighborhood for the IB students, who will be seen as invaders who “took” the neighborhood’s school away.

Open and frank discussion with all the affected parties, especially the neighborhood families and the IB families, must be held. I urge that you, the Board, cause the administration to take a pro-active approach and seek input early and often on these issues.

* * *

Public Hearing Testimony
Annette Werner
December 8, 2008
“Budget/ Community Education Partners”

I have a comment about the budget.

I have heard many Board and staff members agree that the district could improve communication with the public, and I agree with that sentiment.

For example, regarding the agreement with Community Education Partners, we still do not understand why this contract is so expensive and why this was a no-bid contract. If the agreement is renewed after 5 years under the automatic renewal provision it will cost about $5 M a year for 10 years, or $50 M. A lot could have been done with that money. We are also wondering about CEP’s performance and whether the arrangement has had the intended effect, since there still seem to be widespread complaints about discipline.

My own question is whether for a one-time fee of maybe $1 million or so the district could have hired someone to teach existing district staff how to deal with these issues by expanding the program at the Student Achievement Center- for example by adding an additional location at a closed building. The Chinese proverb “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime” comes to mind. Instead of learning how to work with these students on its own, the district will feed CEP (and feed it well) for a lifetime.

Another concern is that enrollment at CEP was expected to be over 400 students, but only 203 students are actually enrolled. It has been mentioned that CEP may give the district a break on this fee. Based on the January 2007 minutes, it seems that the Board can choose each fiscal year whether to continue the arrangement with Community Education Partners. If the Board continues to allocate funds the agreement continues unchanged. Most likely if any of us were paying for twice as much of a service as we were actually receiving, we would take steps to correct that arrangement. I hope the Board will ensure that the budget Right-Sizes this contract or else explain to us, the public and the taxpayers, why when funds are so tight we should continue to pay the same amount as if the school had full enrollment.

* * *

Public Hearing Testimony
Kathy Fine
December 8, 2008
“Parent Engagement Strategies”

I am here this evening to discuss Parent Engagement and the strategies that the district is using to increase this essential component of increased student achievement. I was fortunate to have a long conversation with Mark Conner, who is heading up the parent engagement component of school reform for the district. He seems dedicated to increasing parent engagement and has the passion that I believe is necessary to tackle this monumental task.

I am here to provide another prospective to solving the problem of lack of parent engagement. Although providing parent engagement sessions at different times of the day and in different locations throughout the district shows a consideration for parents with different schedules and travel restrictions, I do not believe that these efforts go far enough to address the enormous problems that we have with parents of at risk students. It is obvious that the district is aware that most of the problems with our school district from the racial achievement gap to loosing students to charter, private and suburban schools can be substantially addressed if we are able to engage the parents of struggling students. But periodic meetings will not cut it. We need to have school-based programs that draw parents to their children’s school. We need to have multiple opportunities throughout the week for parents to attend. We need to attract parents with food, free childcare and entertainment for their children and with give-aways that will entice parents to attend. We need to insure that all eligible students are attending pre-school. We need to replicate the Harlem Children’s Zone “Baby College” that provides parents of children ages 0-3 with the information that they need so that their children will have the adequate cognitive development and nutrition that will grow achieving students. The success of all of these efforts depends on involvement at the individual community level.

We are all aware that we are a district in crisis. But to address this crisis, we need radical change at many levels. The change that addresses our at risk population and that will translate into better academic achievement for these students must include an intensive effort to engage parents where they live. The parent engagement efforts of the district should be commended, but we need to think bigger. Mr. Conner has a monumental task ahead of him, and I am asking each one of you, as board members, to make sure that the direction that the district takes regarding parent engagement is one that acknowledges the enormity of this issue and the dire consequences that we face if we fail.