We Live in Fear

Oswald Murdered by Ruby - 1963

I was 10 years old when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas by Lee Harvey Oswald. It was a Friday and I was in school. My fourth grade teacher told the class what happened and we all cried. That weekend I was riveted to the television watching news coverage of what happened. Sunday I woke up and immediately turned on the television set. Around noon they were moving Oswald to a different jail and I was watching it live on the TV. As he was escorted through the garage, he was shot by Jack Ruby on live TV. In a 48 hour period I had to grapple with the knowledge that our president was shot to death and watched as his assassin was murdered on live TV. The police couldn't even protect him. The images and sadness stick with me to this day. I was 10 years old.

Garner Choked to Death - 2014

I was 61 years old when Eric Garner was choked to death by a group of New York City policemen. The strange part was that I found out about the incident when a friend sent me a link to a video of his death. I clicked on the link and watched (and heard) how his death occurred. If you are so inclined (and frankly, it is so strange that you can see this), you can watch either murder online - Oswald and Garner.

When I was 10 years old I cried, couldn't sleep and could not make any sense of what happened. I was scared for my family's safety and the country's safety.  At the age of 61, I was horrified. Eric Garner was accused by the NYPD of selling single cigarettes on the street. He was frustrated and begged the police to leave him be. When they went to arrest him, it took 5 officers to drop him to the ground. One put him in a choke hold and Garner gasped repeatedly "I can't breathe, I can't breathe" and he died. There had to be another way to deal with this. From my perspective as an urban high school principal, this was an easy situation to manage. There were many ways to de-escalate and resolve what appeared to be an impasse.

Jonny Gammage - 1995

In America we are watching police/victim incidents played out on video and in the news on a weekly basis. In one week, I watched Eric Garner killed by the police for no apparent reason. And I watched a video of Michael Brown lying dead in a Ferguson, MO street for over 4 hours. And I read about a 12 year old boy in Cleveland shot to death on a playground for waving his friend's plastic gun around. It appears that nothing has changed since Rodney King's beating (1991, Los Angeles) and Jonny Gammage's murder (1995, Pittsburgh).

Emmett Till - 1955

We haven't moved beyond looking in Emmett Till's casket at his deformed dead body (1955, Chicago). Remember, he was the 14 year old boy killed by two men (not police) for speaking to a white woman in a small grocery store in Mississippi. Both were acquitted at trial by an all white jury. Both admitted to the murder after they were acquitted.





Is it possible to put the hundreds of police/victim incidents into a rational context? I'm not talking about the self defense cases. Or a man waving a gun at the police. Or a gun battle. We're talking about selling cigarettes (Garner), or "driving while black" (Gammage) or walking down the middle of the street with stolen cigars (Brown). We are bombarded by a never ending stream of these stories. To watch a man murdered... and by the police.

Is it racism?  Is it fear? And why does the jury always find the people who killed the man innocent?  ALWAYS! What are we to make of this? More importantly, what are our children to make of this?

Anyone who denies racism in our society is naive, foolish, ignorant. Both blacks and whites grapple with the vestiges of over 250 years of slavery, followed by 100 years of Jim Crow, followed by 50 years of economic, education and employment inequities. 350 years of treating a race of people like they were subhuman. Conservative Americans can't understand why "blacks" can't be more like whites... more responsible. They are incapable of understanding the effects of the African-American diaspora - the effects of racism, hatred, lack of employment, poor schools, overcrowded jails and harassment on a nationwide scale. They are blind to the emasculation of black men and the sexual exploitation of black women who were enslaved on American plantations.  And they can't imagine how this 350 year history could possibly effect the behaviors of the descendents of slaves today.

Are the police racist... some are and many are not. If you watch the Garner video, you sense the police are working on a very superficial level. They want this guy to quit selling cigarettes illegally on the street. He probably is a nuisance to local businesses who made a complaint. They are beat cops who are just looking to clear this man away. Are they racist, angry or looking for a fight? The video would suggest that is not the case. They just aren't going to take no for an answer. Once the police back-up arrives, a total of 5 policemen take the man down. Now the situation takes on a life of its own... that leads to death. The police are trained to be experts at de-escalating difficult situations. They clearly failed. Would they have acted the same way with a white man... my guess is yes. In either case, is killing this man justifiable? NO. This man is selling single cigarettes (although he denies it), the police overreact to a shocking extreme and within minutes he is dead.

Anyone who denies fear in our society is simply blind. The news media, both on television and online, would have you believe that cities are crime filled sinful places. NIght after night the local and national news projects images of black men being led away by police. In isolation, this creates a worldview that is seriously skewed. The Pittsburgh Metropolitan population, primarily white, is being fed a biased and near sighted bad movie. "Blacks are poor, blacks are on drugs, blacks are on welfare, blacks commit crimes". It's an old riff that is filled with both racism and fear. I would suggest our fear is fed through perception not through experience. My acquaintances who live in the suburbs won't let their children ride the PAT buses. Why not? They live in fear.

While census data from the past 30 years indicate some signs of increasing diversity, we still remain a region deeply divided. In 1980, the average white person in the Pittsburgh metro area lived in a census tract that was over 95 percent white. In 2010, that same white person lived in a tract that was about 92 percent white. (Post-Gazette, 8/9/2012)

The are two issues that I believe contribute to the victim/police killings. The first is that many white people (including police officers) simply have no day to day interaction with diverse, middle class populations. Most live in segregated communities. In America and certainly in the Pittsburgh Metropolitan area, most communities are segregated by wealth and race. Even in the city it is not surprising to find areas where whites (and white police officers) live in segregated communities. Whether in the suburbs or isolated areas of the city, a substantial number of police officers are not engaging with middle class black citizens like themselves. Lack of day to day interactions with middle class black families causes police perceptions to be skewed to the people they meet in their jobs.  Which leads to the second problem.

By definition, an urban police force engages with populations that are in poverty, are unemployed, are less educated, are often engaged in illegal activities and suffer from mental and behavioral health issues. Thus they have a well founded fear and mistrust. And they have few positive interactions to balance their perspective.

However, the police went into their profession with a desire to keep our communities safe knowing they would interact with at risk individuals and criminals on a daily basis. They are professionals who are trained to de-escalate and solve complex problems with a minimum amount of violence. These killings, although a small percentage of the overall policing of America, are abominations, and yet they go unpunished. Cops are good, poor people are bad, you guess who gets the benefit of the doubt. This is an unhealthy situation.

---

So why did I raise this issue in The Principal's Office? Obviously it is bothering me at a visceral level. The other night I watched Jon Stewart talk about the verdict in the Eric Garner case and it brought him to tears. All he could do was scream... literally. That is what I've been feeling. What can we learn from this madness?  Well here is what I have to offer.

First, from a personal perspective, I've lived in Wilkinsburg for over 35 years and worked in city schools for that time. My family has lived, attended school and worked in integrated environments during that time. Wilkinsburg has a reputation for being poor and dangerous. Yet we don't live in fear. Just the opposite. We have friends who are diverse and have the same values that we do. We find that everyone has a simple commonality regarding safety, education, desire to move forward and families that are at the center of their life. Wilkinsburg is portrayed on the news as a terrible place, with crime, bad schools and bad people. This is a small part of a much bigger picture that never gets told. We have had a safe and rewarding life in Wilkinsburg.

Second, there are some hard facts that might temper our collective fear. The 2012 US census shows that 25.7% of black families live in poverty. That would suggest that 74% of black families are not in poverty, they have moved out of poverty, are earning a living wage and seeking a better life for their children. If you look at the trend starting in 1959 you see that black families have benefited from the growth of the middle class in our country. With the growth of a black middle class, there has been a growth in black educational attainment as well. I would suggest that our country's black population has moved forward inspite of the barriers placed in their way.

If your perceptions of black people are limited to the media, than you will be shocked by this chart showing the percentage of black families receiving public assistance. Clearly, the majority of blacks do not receive public assistance of any kind. And surprisingly about the same number of whites receive public assistance as do blacks (http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/).

Third, let me provide you with some insight into racism and fear from an educational perspective. Pittsburgh is a parochial town. What side of the river you live on and what community you come from often determines your world view. I began teaching in the city schools in 1979 at Brashear High School. The school's history was borne out of forced integration.

In 1971, the Pittsburgh Board of Public Education formally approved construction of the first of five proposed 9-12 Super High Schools to replace the twelve comprehensive secondary schools then owned and operated by the Pittsburgh Public Schools. John A. Brashear High School, the only Super High School to realize fruition, was to be located in the Beechview neighborhood of the South Hills and would integrate 9-12 students from Fifth Avenue Junior/Senior High School, Hill District; Gladstone Junior/Senior High School, Hazelwood; and South Hills Junior/Senior High School, Mount Washington. The undertaking of melding these distinct communities into one was not easy; however combined dedication from progressive civic leaders and educators made Brashear not only a success but, also, a model for social integration and scholastic achievement.

Brookline, Beechview and Banksville were three all white South Hills communities on the south side of the Monongahela River. The Hill District was a famous all black community on the north side of the river up the hill. It was made up of both middle class families (Sugar Top) and poorer families (Uptown, SOHO and Center Avenue). And Hazelwood was a very poor ex-steel community that was mixed race on the north side of the river in the flats. It was assumed this would be a volatile student body from a racial, economic and neighborhood perspective. This new Super High School consisted of a beautiful physical plant with amazing programs - a dry cleaning facility, a student run restaurant offering lunch for staff, a computer science magnet, an automobile mechanic and body shop, business labs and great sports teams.

I taught mathematics at Brashear for 5 years. Simply put, the integration model worked. Students were integrated in classes with high expectations for all students. Teachers from the old Fifth Avenue High School in the Hill District helped the Brashear experiment move forward. What I learned in my classroom was that adolescents are experienced based. They talk and interact with their peers and make judgements based on their interactions. Frankly, in my five years at the school, I never had a problem based on race. My colleagues who were at Brashear from the beginning stated that the school had a smooth opening. Students rallied around a great football and basketball team. The school worked. And progress was made against racial stereotypes.  When you live, eat and learn with diverse students, your mind opens up. And you begin to cut people a break.

Years later, a few of my students at Brashear, enrolled their own children in my charter school. These were both black and white parents looking to find a quality education for their children. The issue of a mixed race school was not even a concern. Quality was all that mattered. This was the second generation of students who attended a quality integrated school. Race disappeared into the background and our students were able to concentrate on what they should concentrate on: learning, growing and experiencing the richness of our world. They do not fear each other. They hope for a future that is filled with success, prosperity and peace. Many of these students live in integrated communities. And many have friends from the other race. They don't fear each other. They do fear the police.

---

I don't know if we'll ever live without fear. I believe there will always be people in power who take justice into their own hands. Man's cruelty to man is not new. Frankly, whether you are Black, Jewish, Muslim, Italian, Irish, Mexican or from any immigrant parentage, your people have suffered discrimination and violence. The currency of totalitarian states is violence.


I believe it will take many more generations living in a diverse country before we get close to equity. It certainly won't happen in my lifetime. Attitudes, beliefs and behaviors change at a snails pace. We often measure change by looking at our grandparents, our parents, ourselves and our children - generations. It's important to note that as racial differences begin to mitigate, we learn that the greatest inequity comes from lack of employment, not the color of your skin.

CBS News

Democracy demands that we engage in public discourse.

To keep sane, to sleep at night, to rise above being animals... we must testify, speak out and fight against racism, classism and blatant violence that is the result of ignorance, anger and bias. And most importantly, we must not live in fear.

Is the Teachers Union Moving Forward?

Great Public Schools - Pittsburgh (GPS-PGH) is a consortium of local groups who want to improve education in Pittsburgh. These groups include Action United, One Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Interfaith Impact Network (PIIN), Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers 400, SEIU Healthcare PA and Yinzercation. Great Public Schools - Pittsburgh continues a long tradition of progressive, working class activism whose roots can be found in local labor unions and activist religious organizations.

Great Public Schools - Pittsburgh is actively pursuing a reform agenda in Pittsburgh based on a Community Schools model. Representatives from GPS-PGH recently visited Community Based Schools in Cincinnati. They published a report that puts forth a recommendation for Community Based School reform in Pittsburgh. And they are conducting rallies to build momentum for their plan.

To be honest I was shocked, not that a local group of concerned citizens were engaging in public education issues, but that the Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers (PFT) was partnering with a group that is putting forth a reform model for the district to consider. This is a powerful precedent for the union. And one that is welcome.

I was a member of the Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers during the 1980's and 90's. The PFT was a strong and active union capably led by Al Fondy. Mr. Fondy, a high school mathematics teacher, was elected union president in 1968. He proceeded to lead the union through a series of strikes that created a more professional and fair contract that defined our working conditions. "Al", as he was called respectfully by his membership, excelled at this effort. And as a retired teacher, I am forever grateful for his and the union's efforts. I taught at a time when teachers in Pittsburgh were paid professionally, treated fairly, and were able to have a middle class life with a reasonable retirement after 35 years in the profession.  

That being said, I often argued with Al and the union leadership suggesting we should take a leadership role in the district's educational model. Who better than the teachers to provide input and lead reform efforts? Teachers are where the rubber hits the road. Al was reticent to do so. He told me on a number of occasions that the union was there to negotiate contracts that provide teachers with a quality income, fair benefits, due process and working conditions that are conducive to being successful. But he was clear that the school board was responsible for the education model. We would go along with the district's efforts and would expect the district's support at contract time. That was the paradigm for the 35 years Al Fondy served as the union president. After a rewarding career as an education leader in Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania, Al retired in 2003 and passed away in 2005.

Much has changed since the union was created in the late 1960's. The district's population decreased by over 50%, charter schools compete for district children and parents are upset at the low achievement in many of our urban public schools. A recent A+ Schools report highlights the large achievement disparity between schools in the district. With the large number of school closings since 2000, there has been a parallel decrease in the teacher population and the membership of the PFT. That is one reason the union is stepping up.

To their credit, the model of school reform GPS-PGH is suggesting, Community Based Schools, is a good one. The model is used in Cincinnati and Chicago and is being contemplated for New York city.

"A community school is both a place and a set of partnerships between the school and other community resources. Its integrated focus on academics, health and social services, youth and community development and community engagement leads to improved student learning, stronger families and healthier communities. Community schools offer a personalized curriculum that emphasizes real-world learning and community problem-solving. Schools become centers of the community and are open to everyone – all day, every day, evenings and weekends."

Community schools are a good idea, particularly when you are working with communities that have high unemployment, poverty and disenfranchised youth. As you can see from the Great Public Schools - Pittsburgh Vision and Strategic Overview on the right, the plan builds on a variety of best practices.

The proposal also addresses many current cutbacks in the district. These include arts, library and athletic programming. It addresses the fact that many local neighborhood schools have closed. And it suggests the district find a way to create adequate school funding at the local and state levels. Basically they are suggesting that it is time to get back to focusing on the very simple and powerful fact that "as our schools go, our city goes." No argument here.

It is not surprising that both major teachers unions, the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, are partnered with the national Coalition of Community Schools. A strong community support network can be extraordinarily helpful in moving a neighborhood school to success. I would suggest that both national unions and our local PFT are supporting the Community School effort to try and move the national, state and local education focus to the need for equitable funding to guarantee that all students succeed. This too is an honorable cause.

So is there a downside to this effort? I don't believe so. However, I would suggest it does point out a challenge for the Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers, as well as any union that engages in this type of effort.

Since the union's inception in 1968, teachers have worked in the trenches and observed as urban school districts and their families grappled with poverty, unemployment and the breakup of the core family structure. Unions are well aware that our cities have lost their tax base, their middle class families to the suburbs and their financial support from the state. In fact, most union members who teach in the city moved to the suburbs as well.

As rust belt school districts address a poorer and increasing at-risk student population, their reform efforts are often criticized by the union. Teachers know, at the classroom level, that many mandated reforms are naive at best and a huge burden at worst. A perfect example of this is the over testing of students. This reticence by the union to overwhelmingly endorse district reform initiatives has created tension between the union and the district.

Historically, school districts and teachers unions have been adversaries rather than partners. The blame for this can be shared by both parties. The sad part is that this adversarial relationship hampers progress at solving district problems. And as one can guess, the students suffer the consequences.    

The current union contract is the end result of over 60 years of administrative behaviors that were anti-teacher in a pre-union time. The resolution of these issues occurred through both state legislation and union negotiated contracts. Both provide safeguards from unethical employment practices that previously existed in school districts. These safeguards are successful at avoiding unethical practices. However, some of the negotiated safeguards are counterproductive to quality school efforts.

As the PFT puts forth a Community Schools model to be considered, I hope the union begins to modernize its own internal ideology and culture and finds a way to become consistent with what we know about quality urban schools. To do so, the union must grapple with certain aspects of their contract that are inconsistent with a quality school culture.

Sick Days

One has to look at teacher sick days from both the teacher and student perspective.

From the teacher's perspective, missing work due to illness is something that can't be helped. One would assume taking a day off when ill should not negatively affect your position as a teacher. Prior to teacher unions, teacher illnesses were handled at the discretion of the district. In some cases, you lost a days pay when you were sick. If a female teacher got married or became pregnant, she could be fired. Teachers who became ill were at the mercy of their employer.

This arbitrary approach toward teacher absences ended with union contracts in the late 1960's and with workers rights legislation over the last century. Most teacher contracts provide for 12 sick days and 2 personal days annually. Any days not used accumulate from year to year. When a teacher retires they receive severance pay for unused sick days. The current PFT severance pay is 28% of the daily teacher's rate multiplied by 1/2 of the teacher's accumulated sick days. The maximum payout would be around $24,000 (14 days *35 years*1/2*$100 per day) assuming the teacher never missed a day of work over 35 years.

Unfortunately, the sick day policy has created two unintended consequences. First, some teachers feel sick/personal days are earned days off and take them off annually one way or another. These teachers take all 14 days every year whether they are sick or not. Second, some teachers work nearly every day and complete their 33rd year with over 360 accumulated sick days. A significant number of these teachers, with a doctor's excuse, take nearly two years off, get their full pay during that time and accumulate two years toward retirement benefits. This provides them with much more money than severance pay. It is not hard to get a doctor to sign off on some form of illness when you are in your mid-fifties. Thus, some teachers choose to take the sick time.

Both of these scenarios have a negative effect on the schools. In the first, the teacher misses 14 days a year which is more than one day every three weeks. In the second, the teacher misses the last 2 years of service. The problem is that while the teacher is on sick leave, he/she is replaced by a long term substitute who is a new, inexperienced teacher, paid at the minimum salary with no benefits. The district cannot fill the position with a permanently hired full time teacher until the teacher on sick leave retires. In either case the students lose quality instructional time and their achievement suffers.

From the students perspective, when your teacher is sick, little is accomplished in your classroom. Substitute teachers are at a huge disadvantage. They don't know the students names or learning needs, often they aren't familiar with the curriculum and they have no familiarity with the school's operation. Simply put, from the students perspective, they need their teacher there as much as humanly possible.

I would suggest it is time to reconsider sick leave. In the private sector, professional employees that are ill take time off and continue to be paid. If they are sick for an extended time they are required to bring a note from their doctor. And if they have an ongoing disability, there is both short term and long term disability insurance policies that provide coverage. Since they are considered a salaried professional, they should receive their compensation until they are declared disabled. If it becomes apparent that an employee is abusing the sick leave policy, this should be dealt with in the same manner that any work related concern is dealt with. Without evidence of an ongoing illness, employees who are chronically absent should be terminated.
 

Transfers, Layoffs and Seniority

Prior to state legislation and the union contract, transfers and layoffs occurred at the discretion of district administration. It was not uncommon to be laid off or transferred for unprofessional reasons such as nepotism, sexism, racism or personal relationships between administrators and teachers. In some cases, a higher paid teacher might be laid off in order to keep a lesser paid teacher. Many decisions were made without attention paid to what would be best for student achievement.

Large urban school districts have a significant amount of personnel activity in a year.

• Positions open due to retirements, sick leave, sabbaticals or vacancies.
• Positions are closed and layoffs occur.
• Schools open or close.

When the union contract was first negotiated, the concept of seniority was used to ensure a fair, unbiased methodology to manage transfers and layoffs. State law supports the practice of seniority. Seniority is measured by how many years a teacher has worked in the district. Simply put, the most senior teachers are the first to be allowed to transfer and the last to be laid off. Here's how it works.

Let's say a teacher at school X retires.  The open position is posted to all teachers in the district with the appropriate certification. A number of teachers apply for the position. The person with the greatest seniority is given the position and transfers. This, of course, creates an opening at school Y. This "bumping" occurs until a position is open that noone wants and a new teacher is hired from outside of the district.  From the teachers perspective this is fair and equitable.

From the students perspective this is a mess. First, quality teachers leave their school, new teachers come to their school and there is a sense of constant transition in the school. Sometimes this transition occurs in the middle of the year. Second, more senior teachers have the ability to move and often look to find the "prime" jobs in schools. This creates the unintended consequence of having the most senior teachers working with gifted/honors students, often with small class sizes, often in schools with the least amount of poverty. It would seem that the most experienced teachers should work with the most challenging students. In fact, it makes sense that they should be paid more to work with the most challenging students. Third, during transfers, no attention is paid to quality or specific abilities of teachers. Often teachers are placed in positions that don't take full advantage of their skills.

The same activity occurs with respect to school closings and downsizing. The only difference is the teacher with the least experience is laid off and often leaves the district seeking work elsewhere. Since these decisions are based strictly on seniority with a blind eye to quality, the district often loses quality teachers while keeping less able (but more senior) teachers. This is another case where the effort to be fair and unbiased has a negative effect on the quality of the education provided. Alternative models for determining who gets laid off would have to be based on teacher quality. The union argues that the district has yet to find an agreed to evaluation system that is fair, reliable and valid. And what goes unsaid is they don't trust the administration. That sentiment is troubling in Pittsburgh where the district and union just spent $90 million partnering to create an evaluation and improvement system for teachers. When push came to shove, the union forced the district to use seniority rather than teacher quality as the basis for their most recent layoffs.  

Tenure

Prior to 1937 a teacher could be fired without cause or due process.  If the administrator did not like you, you were fired. In 1937 the Pennsylvania legislature passed a law to rectify this problem.  

The Teacher Tenure Act, which was passed by the General Assembly in 1937, Act 52 of 1937 (P.L. 213) is located in 24 P.S. §§ 11-1121 through 11-1133. ...

The Supreme Court succinctly summarized the purpose of the legislature:
The Teachers' Tenure Act was designed to secure to the citizens of Pennsylvania a competent and efficient school system by preventing dismissal of capable teachers without just cause. It is clear that the legislature did not intend, as appellants contend, that the Act should confer any special privileges or immunities upon the teachers themselves to retain permanently their positions regardless of merit or the future policy of the legislature as to their employment.

Here is how tenure works. Currently, when a teacher graduates from college, he/she has fulfilled the course requirements and passed the PRAXIS exams to become certified to teach in Pennsylvania. The teacher is awarded a Temporary Certificate by the state. The teacher then has 6 years of active duty to complete the requirements for Permanent Certification. The requirements for Permanent Certification include obtaining 24 college credits beyond a Bachelor's Degree, three years of satisfactory evaluations as a public school teacher and completed a school-based induction program.  Once the teacher is permanently certified, they have tenure.

According to state law, tenured teachers are evaluated by their principal once a year. If they receive two consecutive annual unsatisfactory ratings, their employment can be terminated. The argument from the union perspective is if the administration does their legwork, follows due process, and works closely with the teacher, the district can terminate a mediocre teacher. That is correct. But an honest observer would admit that this is a long, drawn out, two year activity that often does not end in termination. The data speaks for itself.

A 2003 Public Agenda survey reported the following:

Teachers acknowledge that getting tenure is neither a long nor difficult process; 73% work in districts that make tenure available after 3 or 4 years. Most teachers (58%) say that when teachers gain tenure in their district, it is no guarantee that they have worked hard and proved themselves.

Teachers also recognize that tenure sometimes protects the incompetent. Nearly 8 in 10 say there are at least a few teachers in their building who fail to do a good job. And over a third (36%) say that it is too hard for administrators to remove any but the very worst.

The question remains as to what type of system could be used to replace tenure.  Many charter schools and private schools have an at-will employment policy to expedite the removal of mediocre teachers. I agree with the union that there must be a plan in place to support teachers and help them to improve. I would hope they would agree that there also must be a more efficient methodology for terminating the employment of teachers that are simply not very good at what they do. A typical elementary school teacher will work with over 1000 students during his/her career. For every year a mediocre teachers is in a class, the class falls .5 years behind in learning.  It simply is not acceptable for a mediocre teacher to remain in the system.

---

I believe there is a place for the union and the contract it negotiates with the district. The contract makes clear what is valued with respect to teachers, administrators, students and culture. I believe it is time to modernize the contract and the relationship between the union and the district. It is to the benefit of the district, the union and most importantly the students to create a successful, collaborative enterprise. Everyone benefits.

It took a century for public school HR policies to become equitable, fair and codified in law. Teachers who are treated with bias, harassed and threatened have federal, state and local laws that now provide them with recourse. Their unions provide them with representation and support. The current question is whether negotiated and/or legislated concepts such as sick days, seniority and tenure can serve both the needs of teachers and students. Policies such as the three mentioned have led to an adversarial relationship between staff and administration. And they have taken the focus off the mission of public schools: improving the lives of our children through educational empowerment.

It would take an enormous amount of courage for the union and school board to pursue a more modern, appropriate and fair methodology to address these issues. They have the ability to negotiate and replace the current language of the contract (and bypass state guidelines if agreed to by both parties.) When the union steps up and advocates for a school reform effort, as is suggested by the Community Schools initiative, they are saying they want to help fix education. I commend their efforts as they move forward. On the other hand, if they are interested in fixing education, are they willing to create a union contract that is progressive, supportive of teachers and consistent with best educational practices for children?  That would be the true test of moving forward.  

Checking the Box

My wife and I married in 1976. When our first child was born in 1984 we asked ourselves a question common to young parents in America, "Where should we send our kids to school?". This was something we took very seriously, as most parents do. My parents said "why don't you move to a nice suburban school district?". In some sense, they were suggesting we do what they did in the 1960's which was to move out of the city to a middle class suburb and "check the box".  They believed if it worked for their sons, it would work for their grandchildren.

What I mean by "check the box" is that you move to a homogenous suburb of like minded people with what is considered a quality school, pay your taxes, and sleep good at night knowing you've checked the education box. Your children will do fine.  And since these were public schools, there was no cost over and above their property taxes.

As usual, we did not agree with my parents... for a number of reasons.  We both grew up in the suburbs (my wife outside of Baltimore/Washington and myself outside of Cleveland). We both disliked the suburbs for various reasons and chose to attend college in the city. We met at Carnegie Mellon University and decided to make Pittsburgh our home. We bought a house in the East End (Wilkinsburg) and have lived there for 35 years. Here's what we love about living in the city.

• Living in a community that was socioeconomically, racially, culturally and age diverse
• Outstanding public transportation
• Walking to shops, movie theaters, libraries, the post office
• The Carnegie Museums
• The Theaters - PPT, City Theater, Pittsburgh Opera, PICT
• The Universities
• Schenley and Frick Park
• Living in a very affordable 100 year old Victorian home with leaded and stained glass, oak fireplaces, wood floors, high ceilings, front and back porches and a three car garage
• Amazing architecture
• Wonderfully diverse restaurants
• Relative proximity to where we worked (very short commute) 
• Squirrel Hill, Greenfield, Southside, Shadyside, Oakland, East Liberty, Friendship, The Strip, Lawrenceville, Bloomfield, Polish Hill and all the neighborhoods

Thus began our journey to provide our children with a quality education. Our neighborhood schools in Wilkinsburg were struggling and very low achieving. They did not seem to be a viable option. As an employee of the Pittsburgh Public Schools (PPS), I had the option of sending my children to the city schools. Both of our daughters attended PPS schools - Regent Square Elementary School and Reizenstein Middle School. My eldest graduated from Taylor Allderdice High School and my youngest graduated from City Charter High School. They both received outstanding educations.

The quality of Pittsburgh education at the time depended upon what neighborhood you lived in, or what magnet school you could attend, or what program (such as gifted or scholars) your child was eligible for. Our friends confronted the same education landscape and worked hard to get it right. Most went to public schools. Some went to private schools. And some moved to get into a particular school. Some even used a relative's address to get into a particular school.
Our education journey was difficult, but doable, especially if you had financial means. It was also helpful that I was an educator so I had a deeper knowledge of the system than most parents.

It is much harder for a parent to maneuver through the urban education options in 2014. What would my wife and I do now if we had to find a school for our children?  Why is it more difficult?  Basically, the economic, population and housing trends that began when we were born continues to the present day. These trends have had a devastating effect on urban schools.

---

In the 1950's Pittsburgh, like Cleveland, Buffalo and Detroit, was in its heyday. Post war growth had the city's industry humming with new houses, new cars, new highways, bridges, office buildings, skyscrapers, etc. Cities were thriving. At the same time, the great American Dream was evolving. The advent of the American highway system, the proliferation of automobiles and the creation of a robust middle class provided a level of mobility never seen in our history. People began moving to the suburbs.

The Growth of Pittsburgh

The migration to the suburbs was exacerbated during the 1960's by civic unrest in the urban core. This volatile decade was highlighted by the Civil Rights movement, an anti-war movement and a labor movement that was centered in our cities. Riots in urban ghettoes, marches on university campuses, a war in Viet Nam, numerous labor strikes and four assassinations were played out on the 11:00 news. Many families began to fear urban life and those with means moved to the suburbs. The chart at the right shows the decline in Pittsburgh's populations starting in 1950.  By 1970 the city lost over 150,000 people from its height in 1950. And this was before both industrial and educational challenges raised the stakes on urban living.

From an urban education perspective, the 1970's and 1980's were the decades of integration. 20 years after the Brown v. Board of Education ruling, the courts came to the conclusion that voluntary integration would not occur. Forced busing attempted to provide equal education to all students. It was naive to think the courts could force integration. Parents fears, beliefs, biases and limited experiences were too great to overcome, in what was perceived as a court decision that overruled personal choice. Rather than integrate, many people of means moved to the suburbs.

From an urban economic perspective, the 1970's and 1980's were the decades when industry left the cities. Steel mills, automobile plants and related industries shut down and moved out. It is estimated that over 150,000 people were laid off by the steel companies in Pittsburgh in 1982-3. People left the city to seek jobs elsewhere. The people that left were either working middle class families with means who moved to the suburbs or out of work steelworkers who moved to find jobs elsewhere. This left a city with a diminished tax base, empty houses, shrinking human capital and a feeling of devastation.

Urban Decline in Rust Belt Cities

The table above demonstrates the loss of population, the lowering of median income and the stagnant growth of housing prices that occurred from 1970 through 2006 in these four rust belt cities. This stagnancy occurred while the country, particularly in the suburbs, went through decades of constant growth and generation of wealth built on the Information Technology revolution.

Decades of unrest, loss of jobs, loss of industry, forced integration and mobility to the suburbs created an urban core that was decaying.  By 2010 Pittsburgh had lost over 50% of its population.

Edgar Thompson 

Steel Works

Then and Now...

---

It is not surprising therefore, that urban school districts were confronted with a complex problem. Loss of resources, working with a more needy student population and a diminished economy put the school districts at a huge disadvantage. That is what confronted parents as they attempted to choose a school for their children. So let me tell a story about what parents will do to find a quality school for their children. The year was 1987.

LA Times Article

The Pittsburgh Public Schools implemented a magnet program to encourage voluntary integration. The magnet schools had a special emphasis (computer science, foreign language, classical studies) and were designed to be racially balanced (50% black, 50% white). Sign up was on a first come, first served basis.

1987 Magnet Signup

Imagine... for six days and nights parents were lined up on sidewalks outside in the January cold around Reizenstein Middle School for the opening of the magnet school sign ups. A friend of mine and fellow teacher hired someone to sit in the line so that his children could attend one of the magnet schools!

This is the extent that people will go to find a quality school for their child. It also raises key points about school choice in an urban setting.  It proved that parents were willing to send their children to integrated schools... with two caveats. First, the races have to be balanced. By creating racial quotas the magnets by design were racially balanced. This was needed to get families over their fears pertaining to mixing races. Second, the fact that parents went out of their way to sign their children up for a school (rather than default to their neighborhood school) suggests that the magnet parents shared a common desire for quality education. Simply put, parents were willing to put their children on a bus, leave their neighborhood and attend a magnet school if the school was balanced racially, was of a high quality and had parents who actively made the choice to attend the school. They made this choice rather than move to the suburbs.

Imagine... waiting 6 days and nights outside in January.

---

So how does a parent make the decision in 2014?

Pittsburgh East End Schools - Public, Charter, Private

The chart above summarizes the current public, charter and private schools in Pittsburgh's East End. As you can see it's a daunting list. Neighborhood schools, magnets, partial magnets, charters, parochial ($4,000-18,000 per year), university schools ($13,000 per year) and private schools ($16,000 - 28,000 per year). And if you have more than one child, the cost to go to private schools doubles or triples.

It is not surprising that there is a huge amount of variability between these schools. Some are all white... some are all black.  Some are poor... and some are wealthy. And some are diverse. Some produce amazing student achievement, and some are the lowest in the state. The variation of schools in both the city and the suburbs suggests that education in America is balkanized.  So we are back where we started... the burden is on the parent to figure it out and get the best education for their child. Thus, more and more people choose to "check the box" and move out of the city to an affordable suburban school district.

I have an adage that I subscribe to. People, parents, politicians do a lot of talking. They talk as if they are conservative or liberal, reactionary or radical, libertarian or tea party.  I don't listen to what they say. I watch where they send their children to school. People don't gamble with their children. They shouldn't. But they do select schools based on their biases, their fears, their experiences and sometimes, what's easy.  I can make an argument for "checking the box" and attending a suburban school from a variety of perspectives. Free education. A relatively good quality. Convenience.

As is true of any school choice there are drawbacks as well.  Suburban schools were always considered safe, but that is less true now (see The Evolution of Violence in Schools.) And in suburbia, conformity is the norm. It can be a difficult passage through a suburban school if you are a special needs child, or have ADHD, or are in a small minority (race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation). But as long as you fit in, your parents can "check the box".

I am suggesting that parents who want to live in the city should engage in their child's education, stay in the city and help make our schools better. Education is so much more than learning the essentials (reading, writing and arithmetic). It is about learning how to collaborate, becoming tolerant of individual differences, gaining value from diversity and different points of view. It is about becoming culturally aware through museums, libraries, architecture and the arts. It is about experiencing the culture of other religions, races, classes and ethnicities. It is about becoming part of a greater community, society, country and world. And you can get a rigorous academic experience if you work at it.

You are fooling yourself if you move to a suburban school and all you do is check the box. You are fooling yourself if you send your child to any school and all you do is check the box. In America, a child's education is determined by their parent, not the government.

I finish with a recent letter to the editor in the Post-Gazette. The letter was sent by a colleague of mine and an excellent teacher I worked with at City High. She talks about her struggle to find a quality school for her son. And she does a superb job of articulating the broader issue. By no means could she be accused of "checking the box."

Woodland Hills’ history shows parents can demand quality 

As a parent of a student in the Woodland Hills School District and as an educator, I read with interest “Woodland Hills Strives and Struggles to Achieve Equality” (Oct. 5). Most compelling was that the initial drive to ensure an equal education for all students came not from politicians or educators but from parents.

My husband and I have struggled since our son neared the end of his preschool years to determine the best educational choice for him from myriad options: public, private or charter, homeschooling or unschooling. Some counseled that we move, others that we budget to allow for a private education. We entered charter lotteries and bore the disappointment of waiting lists.

Through it all, two things remained constant. One is that we have been consistently impressed and grateful for the remarkable talents and professionalism of the teachers and administrators at Woodland Hills. Another constant is our belief that it is not just our child but our neighbors’ children, who all deserve a quality education. We may pick up and move; we may scrimp to afford a private school education, but what about the families who may not have those options available to them?

Families must make the decisions that they can live with and that work best for them. I look for my inspiration to the families who fought for the original desegregation order for providing a model of how dedicated parents can organize and demand a rigorous and enriching education for all students.

(Post-Gazette, Oct. 15, 2014)

Special Education

A few weeks ago, I attended a conference at the University of Pittsburgh on the education of African-American males. Out of the clear blue a parent stood up and stated "the problem is Charter Schools are taking special education funding from the school districts and not using it appropriately. They need to give the excess funds back."  Where did that come from?

Shameless Lobbying by Charter Schools Jeopardizes Solid Special Education Reform (Lower Macungie Patch, May 26, 2014)

Our Missing $200 Million (Yinzercation, May 30, 2014)

Critics are stating that Charter Schools receive more special education funding than they need and are using the funds for other purposes. Excess funds should be returned. On the surface this seems to make great sense. But it actually is a red herring. It has everything to do with the Special Education funding formula and nothing to do with Charter Schools. Let's spend some time finding out how Special Education is funded in Pennsylvania.

Federal Legislation

Special Education (i.e. providing individualized education services to students with identified disabilities) is a relatively new phenomenon in the United States. Here is a quick timeline of events (Source 1).

1961 - President Kennedy creates the President’s Panel on Mental Retardation. The panel’s recommendations includes federal aid to states. 

1965 - President Johnson signs the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which provides funding for primary education, and is seen by advocacy groups as expanding access to public education for children with disabilities. In spite of these two initiatives, little changes occurred in public education regarding meeting the needs of students with disabilities.  

1975 - Two federal laws were passed that provided the legal basis for our current special education program.  The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) established the right to public education for all children regardless of disability.  The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) required schools to provide individualized or special education for children with qualifying disabilities. Under the IDEA, states who accept public funds for education must provide special education to qualifying children with disabilities.

The concept of Special Education was operationalized via the 1975 federal EHA and IDEA legislation.

Pennsylvania Funding

A HIstory of Special Ed Funding (Source 2)

In 1975 Pennsylvania was committed to providing 50% of all regular education costs to local school districts. When the federal government passed these two laws, Pennsylvania created a Special Education funding formula based on need. The Excess Cost System meant the state funded Special Education based on the actual per student cost of providing services over and above regular education costs. Thus every district received adequate funding to meet their Special Education needs. This was a huge commitment on the part of the state.

I entered public education as a teacher in 1975.  In Upper St. Clair HS (where I taught for two years) and in the Pittsburgh Public Schools (where I worked for 23 years), Special Education classes were pull outs - meaning special needs students were taught in isolated rooms by certified special education teachers. The state provided funding for each student that was identified. Providing per student funding actually created a financial incentive to identify students with disabilities. As the chart above suggests, in practice this type of funding, although adequate to meeting the demand, incentivized taking students out of the regular education population. My experience in Pittsburgh found that special education classes were overwhelmingly filled with black males. In a very cynical (and racist) way, this seemed like a "win-win" for the district.

In 1983, the state of Pennsylvania changed it's funding formula for school districts. They repealed their commitment to fund at the 50% level. High inflation, loss of jobs/industry, growing special education costs and a conservative backlash against taxes created revenue shortfalls. The funding levels dropped consistently over the next 20 years to a low of 36% in 2006 (Source 4).

A HIstory of Special Ed Funding (Source 2)

In 1991, the state decided to change its Special Education funding formula in order to save money. The new formula assumed that 15% of a given school population had a "mild disability" and 1% had a "severe disability". Based on these assumed proportions, the state provided a consistent revenue stream to fund special education for local districts.  This model was predicated on the belief that all districts have the same proportion of special needs students.  As one can imagine, the new funding formula had two important ramifications.

First, it created an incentive not to identify students for special education. Since the funding was fixed, the less students with special needs the better. Thus there was a financial disincentive to test students for disabilities. Although this is a very cynical and unethical consequence, evaluation decisions at the administrative level were often made through a funding filter.

What Causes Learning Disabilities

Second, the new funding formula gave too much money to certain districts and too little money to others. If your district had only 10% special needs students than the district kept the additional money and spent it any way they wanted to. Sound familiar?

If the district had more than 16% special needs students, than the district did not have enough money to provide services for its students. They would have to make up the difference with local funds or not provide services (which is against the federal law). It is not a surprise that districts with higher levels of poverty have higher percentages of special needs students (note the three possible contributing factors to learning disabilities in the chart at the right.)

So it was the 1991 Special Education funding formula that created the system that provided excess funds to some districts.  And these excess funds did not have to be returned. There was very little complaining about excess funding before the existence of Charter Schools. The main complaint pertained to the fact that state funding in general was shrinking.  It is hypocritical for critics of Charter Schools to demand that they pay back excess special education funds when they never asked the rich suburban districts who have received excess funds since 1991 to return those funds to the state. But then again, many of those critics live in the suburbs and send their children to suburban schools.

In 2013 the State of Pennsylvania commissioned a report on special education funding including recommendations for a new formula. The published report attempts to fix the formula by addressing factors such as severity of disability, poverty, local conditions, etc. The report has been published but the recommendations have not yet been made into law.

Special Education Expenditures at the School Level

At the school level, Special Education funding is often a tale of two extremes.  A case study from my experience as a Charter School principal points out how complex special education funding can be.

School districts complete a PDE Form 363 to determine the tuition they must provide to Charter Schools per student.  In Pittsburgh for the 2014-15 school year, the district will provide a Charter School with $12,402.91 (PA average is $9717.99) for every regular education student and $27,270.14 (PA average is $20,270.12) for every special education student. This means that the charter receives an additional $14,876 (PA average is $10,552.12) for each special education student. That's a lot of money.

As one would guess there are different levels of expenditure based on each student's individual needs.

Low Cost Extreme: Every year our school has a few students who have a speech and/or a hearing disability. As per the special education guidelines, the student's Individualized Education Program (IEP) articulates how the school, student and parent are going to address the disability. First, a complete evaluation of the student is conducted often by a third party psychologist. Second, once the IEP is written based on the evaluation and agreed to by all parties, primary services may include working with a speech therapist throughout the year. This is accomplished through an itinerant certified speech teacher who works for the local Intermediate Unit. The teacher will work with the student as needed for the entire school year. Third, support services are provided to the student by both a special education teacher and the regular education teachers in the regular education classrooms (least restrictive environment.) This type of intervention, due to the minimal severity of the disability, might only cost an additional $5000 in expenditures. Thus, according to the critics of Charter Schools, our school netted  $9,876 ($14,876 - $5000) and should have to pay it back to the district.

High Cost Extreme: Every year our school has a few students with severe disabilities. An example would be a student with multiple disabilities such as an intellectual disability (60 IQ) in addition to a speech and learning disability. Many schools or smaller districts are not able to adequately support students with severe or multiple disabilities within their program. In this case, our school works with the parent to conduct a full psychological evaluation to create the IEP.  The IEP may call for wrap around comprehensive services that can only be provided at schools specific to working with severely disabled students. We work with the parent to locate a mutually agreed to facility that meets the child's needs and is welcoming to the family. Once the child is accepted into that facility's program, we pay for the students tuition and transportation. We work with the school on the annual IEP, follow the student's progress and work with the parent to obtain support services as needed. A recent example for such a student cost our school over $90,000 per year (for 4 years).  Believe it or not, the highest part of the cost was for daily transportation from home to the facility.  In this case, our school was spending $62,730 ($90,000 - $27,270) more than the allocation it received.

As you can see, a number of students with high cost extreme disabilities can tax a school's budget. Extra costs from one student help to defray costs from another. It should be noted that every attempt was made to work with our chartering school district (the Pittsburgh Public Schools) to share transportation costs.  Essentially, PPS was transporting their students to the same private school, but was unwilling to work with our school to share the transportation. This would have saved the district money and our school money since we would have shared the costs. Since they were not willing to work with us, we had to transport the student spending large amounts of money that could have been saved.

The Takeaway

Cost balancing of special education funding occurs in every school and every district in Pennsylvania.  Some districts spend more than they receive and others net gains that are spent on programs outside of special education.  Or they choose to carry the net gain to the following year in case they need to serve students with high cost extreme disabilities.

Since 1983, the state has funded regular education in a manner that shows a clear lack of support - lowering its funding from 50% to 36%.  As the state lowers its funding for education, the local districts must make up the difference. This leads to local funding where wealthier districts provide more and better resources than poorer districts (i.e. education inequality.)

Since 1991, the state has funded special education in a manner that is cynical, simple minded and benefits the haves... not the have nots.  This occurred under both Democrat and Republican governors, and a Republican legislature.  I have already commented on the funding inequities in my blogpost - To learn about education in Pennsylvania... Follow the money!

The often cynical and unethical behaviors by district administrators to manage their special education identification and programming based on financial incentives or disincentives is terribly distressing.  Whether this occurs in rich suburban school districts, poor urban districts or charter schools, it is wrong.

As a society, we should be committed to quality education for all students.  A first step would be for the state level to legislate the recommendations made by the 2013 Special Education Funding Commission.

It also might be a good idea if the watchdog groups, such as the Pennsylvania Federation of Teachers, the Pennsylvania Education Association, Yinzercation and Great Schools - Pittsburgh, took some of the effort they put into complaining about funding and used that effort to monitor District and Charter special education programs to see how successful they are. The critics want to talk about money. We should be talking about creating successful models with our special needs population.

I am very proud of the efforts that City High has made regarding special education. Below you will find a few measures from City Charter High School's Annual Report regarding special education. City High recently went through a successful state audit of its special education program in which the schools program was described as "exemplary".

City High special education students graduate with:

• similar GPA's (90% with 2.0 or higher) to regular ed students;
• similar number of Microsoft certifications (3 - 5) to regular ed students;
• similar grades on graduation projects (71% A or B) to regular ed students;
• similar grades on external internships (90% A or B);
• higher ratings on school attitudes and experiences (see following chart).  

---

So let's finish the money talk. Let's say a charter school has excess special education money at the end of the year. And let's say they gave it back to the school district. What would the district do with it? Would they give it back to the taxpayers? Would they send a check back to the state? Would they spend it on their existing special education students? Or would they allocate it to other purposes?

What's your guess?

---

Sources on Pennsylvania School Funding

1. The History of Special Education in the United States
http://www.specialednews.com/the-history-of-special-education-in-the-united-states.htm

2. A History of Special Education Funding in PA 
http://reformspecialedfunding.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/paspecialedfundinghistory.pdf

3. The History of School Funding in PA

http://www.parss.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/PARSS-HistoryofSchoolFunding.pdf

4. A History Public School Funding in Pennsylvania

http://www.elc-pa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ELC_PAPublicSchoolSchoolFunding_History.pdf

Measuring Quality

Every public school educator fears the day when they open up the morning newspaper and reads the headline. The state scores were announced and your school is going to be judged by a limited number of factors, mainly a single score on a Reading,Mathematics and Science test. What percentage of your students were Proficient?  And how did your scores compare to the surrounding school districts?

Every parent fears the day when their child, who had good grades in school, opens the letter from the College Board and sees their SAT or ACT scores.  Are the scores low, too low for the college he/she wants to attend?  Are they too low considering his/her good grades?

Every student fears the moment they get their final exam, their chapter test, quiz, writing assignment, etc. back and sees a score that is low.  Imagine how it feels if the tests are handed back in order from highest to lowest.

Test scores have become the default mechanism for determining whether a school, student or teacher is doing well.  I completely understand why one would want a measure for comparing the quality of schools.  And I understand the need to evaluate student progress and achievement.  Yet a single test score does not come close to describing either.  So what is the alternative?

When we opened City Charter High School, we contracted with an outside education evaluator, Dr. Catherine Nelson, to help us develop a comprehensive evaluation tool for the school.  We call it our Annual Report Card and it is shared with our staff, our Board and with the community.

This year's annual report is 45 pages long. Some of it would apply to any public school, some to just high schools and some just to unique programs at City High. The point is that we are providing the public with a comprehensive methodology for evaluating the quality of our school.

The Report Outline (above) focuses on the 10 domains where we gather data. Each domain has various measures that provide input to stakeholders including parents, teachers, students, the Board, the chartering school district, the state, etc.

Examples of data from the City High Report follow. They are intended to provide the reader with a broader context  for measuring quality in schools. I have chosen one item per domain. If you'd like to look at all the measures go to the City High website and read the report online or download it.

---

I. Student Achievement: This graph provides Keystone test data for City High.  The Keystone exams are Pennsylvania's assessment used both to determine individual student proficiency and to measure school performance. The value of showing the data in this format is that it provides school level data for both Algebra and Literature, compares the data for 2013 and 2014 and baselines the data with the 2019 state goal.  Other measures for student achievement include, but are not limited to, QPA's, portfolios, presentations, certifications, college readiness scores (SAT/ACT) and student improvement data (PVAAS).

City High Keystone Results

II. Independent Learning: This is a domain that predicts success in both postgraduate education and the job market. Most schools never report data in this category.  The chart below is a student rating which provides feedback on where the student feels they stand in this domain. Other charts in the report provide teacher ratings on the same skills.  This rating is watched over time (both as students go from Freshmen to Seniors and as the school grows in its ability to create independent learners.) Other measures of independent learning include evaluation of graduation projects, independent science projects and teacher surveys.  

III.  Workforce Skills

Since the ultimate measure of K12 school quality is success after graduation, it would be wise to measure workforce skills. These "soft skills" include problem solving, collaboration, time management, project management and communication skills. All students at City High participate in a graded, heavily evaluated 130 hour external internship. The chart below provides data on both successful completion of the internship (grade) and host satisfaction with the intern. Another measure of workforce skills the school uses is the average number of Microsoft certifications for the graduating class.  

IV. Post High School Transitions  

This is another domain associated with post graduation success.  The graph below shows longitudinal data on Pittsburgh Promise eligibility (Pittsburgh's college scholarship program.) Note the graph provides 5 years of data, broken  out by race and using the Pittsburgh Public Schools aggregate data as a baseline.  Other measures include graduation rates, success in college, plans for transitioning after graduation, higher education placement and student surveys of their preparation for the transition.  

V. Teacher Quality and Growth

Teacher quality is one of the key factors in a quality School That Works.  The data for the chart below comes from the annual survey of teachers.  Other measures of teacher quality and growth include % certified, degree attainment, promotions in a given year, opportunities for growth and how planning time is used.  Some data comes from surveys and some from employment history. Teacher attendance and turnover are also measured.  

VI. Parent Satisfaction/Engagement

Parent Satisfaction and Engagement are key elements in a quality school's success. The chart below is a measure of overall parent satisfaction.  Note that the chart uses a national baseline for comparison. These figures are also kept longitudinally to look for year to year trends. Other measures in this category include measures of the school's responsiveness to parents needs, parental use of the online student information system and satisfaction with various aspects of the school program.  

VII.  Curriculum and Instruction

It is not easy to measure the quality of curriculum and instruction in schools.  Often this entails many classroom observations and analysis of books, courses of study and implementation strategies. However, some basic information can be collected via student surveys pertaining to classroom activities, personalism and differentiated instruction.  Simple measures such as the number of instructional hours in a year, especially when baselined against state minimums is valuable.  The chart below measures students perception of classroom personalism and it is baselined against a study in the Chicago Public Schools (CPS).

VIII.  Special Education

Questions pertaining to a school's special education program often focus on the level of inclusion, classroom achievement and transitioning to post high school training, education or work. Note in the following graph that the achievement gap between regular ed students and special ed students was eliminated in 3 years.  

IX. School Climate

Measures of school climate pertain to student success, student/teacher retention, attendance, alignment with core values, quality relationships and trust.  These are often measured by determining whether students and staff are in attendance, remain in the school for four years and feel the school is supportive.  Attendance/Retention/Promotion data is used as well as surveys of all members of the school community.  

X. Leadership

One of the most important areas to measure is school leadership.  Satisfaction ratings from faculty and parent surveys are key.  Leadership turnover is an important element to look at.  A board evaluation of the Leadership team is conducted annually.  

---

An argument can be made that a 45 page annual report is too much to ask any parent to work through to determine whether a school works or not.  Two years ago the State of Pennsylvania began providing the public with a School Performance Profile (SPP) for every school in the state. The state takes test scores, test improvement, graduation rates and attendance rates to come up with a single number to describe the quality of each school.  In 2012-13 our SPP number was 81.2 out of 100.  Compared to urban high schools in Pennsylvania that makes us one of the best.  Compared to wealthy suburban school districts in Allegheny County that score puts us in the middle of the pack. One number. How good is your school? 81.2.

Whether we like it or not, we live in a country whose educational system is essentially based on school choice.  Where you go to school is determined by where you choose (or can afford) to live, or where you purchase an education (private, Catholic) or if there is a charter school or magnet school you can attend. Parents are desperate to get their students into a quality school. If you don't trust a single number such as the SPP or you don't have access to a comprehensive report on the school, here are a few common sense suggestions.

1. Visit the school and take a tour.  Make sure you go into classes, the cafeteria and the administrative offices.  Listen to what your tour guide points out.  What is the culture of the school?  What do they value?  Are they focused on academics, extracurriculars, the physical plant or the football team?  

2. Watch the people.  Are students engaged?  Are teachers actively helping students individually?  Are people happy... or miserable?  

3. Talk to a student.  Ask him/her what are you working on?  What have you learned about this subject? 

4. When you are in classrooms, filter what you see through the lens of equity.  Do boys and girls get called on equally?  Does the seating chart appear to put a specific group of students together (for example... active boys in the back, or all the black students together?)  Does the school do tracking where some students are not able to participate in academic classes?  

5. Look at the physical aspects of the school.  What is on the walls? What information greets you as you enter the building?  Is there a metal detector? Is it an athletic awards cabinet? Or is it about academic achievements? Colleges attended?  Graduates and Alumni?  Is the school clean?  Go into a bathroom. See if it is well maintained.  

6. Talk to neighbors who had students who recently went through the school.  How were their children prepared?  Ask their children about their experience.  Ask them if they had to do it over again would they send their child to the school.    

7. Observe the school cafeteria or end of the day dismissal.  Watch how the school handles students in transition. Is there adequate guidance?  Are the students responsible and well behaved or is it pandemonium?  

8. Ask about Special Education.  Does the school do a pull out or an inclusion program?  Ask about the transition planning for high school juniors/seniors who have an IEP.  See if you can talk to the Special Education coordinator.  

9. Look at the assignments and notes on the board.  Look at the vocabulary.  Look at the problem sets.  Is the focus on simple minded basic skills or is it challenging work?  Is there an indication that students work on in depth projects?

10. Look at the state test scores for all subgroups.  This means don't just look at how the school did as a whole.  But look at how Title I students did, or Special Education students did, or students of color.  Look at achievement gaps.

11. Talk to the Principal.  See if he/she talks about what the school has to offer or whether the focus is on how the school measures its success... with all students.

12. Find out what kind of Support Services are offered.  Is there a nurse, social workers, college counselors, a place for students to seek out help?  

Measuring quality is very important.  Simplifying it to a single number or a test score is foolish. Whether we like it or not, our society expects parents to choose the best for their children; no matter what the child's circumstances.  Assuming that you can send your students to the local community school and receive a quality education is not guaranteed.  

All schools are not equal.