Wake Up Pittsburgh - Ten Years of School Reform

I came back after New Years from visiting relatives and settled in to a Pittsburgh winter. There were two Post-Gazette (P-G) articles, one in January and one in February, that caught my eye. Both involved the Pittsburgh Public Schools. Both were important stories. Neither seemed to have much to do with one another.

Yet I can't get them out of my head.

To me, these stories define the issues, politics and struggles in public education in Pittsburgh and across the nation. Within the stories we find the major themes of community, segregation by race and poverty, the mission of public schools in the urban core and school choice. These types of articles beckon us to get our head out of the sand and deal with these issues in an honest and fact-based fashion. The answers to our current dilemmas lie in our history.

This is the first of a two-part post pertaining to the Pittsburgh Public Schools reform initiatives from 2006 to 2016 and their impact on student achievement and local neighborhoods.

---

Post-Gazette Story I - January 15, 2017

The January Post-Gazette story I'm referring to was not actually a story, it was an editorial. For years I've read editorials by the P-G about the school district. They were always polite to the point of being politically correct, always looking at the bright side, always constructive. The P-G has consistently supported traditional public education, respecting both the union and the school board and reticent to support public charter schools. Yet this editorial was damning. I was shocked by its tone. This was the most critical piece on the public schools that I've seen by the P-G editorial board. It pertained to a recent Council of Great City Schools report on the 2016 status of the Pittsburgh Public Schools.

"The council put the best possible face on its findings, noting that the problems are similar to those in other urban districts and asserting that Pittsburgh’s schools have “the talent, the will and the determination” to achieve a turnaround. But there is no sugarcoating the fact that issues targeted years ago now have to be addressed anew under superintendent Anthony Hamlet. The council urged patience as officials work on a turnaround, but a city surging forward in so many respects actually should take the opposite tack — impatience — with a perpetually troubled school system."

Where did this report come from?

Upon the retirement of Superintendent Linda Lane, the Pittsburgh Public Schools (PPS) hired Dr. Anthony Hamlet as Superintendent in June 2016. Immediately after his arrival, Superintendent Hamlet asked the Council of Great City Schools (CGCS) to conduct a comprehensive review of the Pittsburgh Public Schools' organization, instruction, research and operations. PPS is a member of the Council of Great City Schools.

"The Council of the Great City Schools brings together the nation’s largest urban public school systems in a coalition dedicated to the improvement of education for children in the inner cities. The Council and its member school districts work to help our schoolchildren meet the highest standards and become successful and productive members of society." 

This was an extremely wise move on the part of the newly hired Superintendent. It would provide Dr. Hamlet with a non-biased review of the District that would inform his efforts. It would also provide a baseline that could be used to measure Dr. Hamlet's achievements as he moves forward.

Before we review the report's findings in greater detail, let's go back and review the chain of events starting in 2006 that led to this report.

-----------------------------------------

2006 - The Beginning of the Reform

In 2005, the newly appointed Superintendent, Mark Roosevelt, did exactly as Dr. Hamlet did and asked the Council of Great City Schools to review the current state of the District.

In March 2006 the CGCS presented their report to the District - Focusing on Achievement in the Pittsburgh Public Schools. Here is a summary from the report (pg. 74).

"... the Council’s instructional team also made a number of recommendations in this report to strengthen and focus some of the superintendent’s priorities, as well as to augment reforms that he already has begun. For example, some of the team’s proposals were directed at setting measurable targets by subgroup that go beyond No Child Left Behind requirements. The team also made recommendations about the district’s reading adoption and math program. The team described a new approach to the district’s pacing guides that it believes would provide for more instructional consistency, could guide classroom work, build in concept reviews, and better align instruction with the curriculum and state assessments, and prepare students for the next grade level and its required testing. The team also made a series of recommendations to strengthen professional development. And the team suggested additional steps toward more accurate data on which to make instructional and program decisions. Finally, the team made a number of recommendations on the district’s program for gifted and talented students." 

The CGCS team focused on improving student achievement. Their recommendations pertained to the need for a more comprehensive curriculum that included improved instruction, improved pacing guidelines, alignment of curriculum and instruction to state assessments, better data collection and strengthening the District's professional development program.

The new superintendent, Mark Roosevelt, came in with a Board directive to move the Pittsburgh Public Schools forward into the 21st Century. This CGCS report provided guidance and context for the new superintendent's initiatives, particular those related to curriculum and teacher development.

Roosevelt, a recent graduate of the Broad Superintendent Academy, was part of a new generation of school leadership.

"The Broad Academy brings together game-changing leaders who challenge, support and learn from each other as they develop innovative strategies to tackle some of urban public education’s greatest needs."

Roosevelt was not an educator, meaning he did not have a degree in education, was not state certified as an educator, did not have the Pennsylvania Letter of Eligibility for Superintendency and had no K12 experience. He was a Massachusetts politician and state legislator who was appointed as Chairman of the legislature’s Education Committee, where he was the co-author and chief sponsor of the Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993. His arrival in Pittsburgh began a period of great excitement and multiple initiatives leading to great change.

Here are four of his signature Pittsburgh initiatives.

1. "Right Sizing" and the ALAs - The CGCS report mentioned "the many changes being pursued aggressively by the leadership". Two of these changes were articulated in a Board presentation made March 1, 2006.

• "Right sizing" the District by closing 22 schools, closing 18 buildings, moving 3 schools, expanding 10 elementary schools to K-8."
• "Creating 8 Accelerated Learning Academies at its poorest achieving schools. These schools could have a longer calendar and a longer school day."

There were numerous public concerns about the closing and merging of neighborhood schools. As one might imagine the staff, school board members, parents and students from the schools to be closed were not pleased. Questions were raised about racial and economic discrimination pertaining to which schools were closed. Many local neighborhoods were left without a school in their community. Many students were bused into other neighborhoods to attend large consolidated schools (often K-8), much different from the small neighborhood school (K-5) they were attending. And many teachers would be transferred or possibly laid off. 

2. Excellence for All (EFA) - Building off the recommendations of the CGCS 2006 report, the District created a program called Excellence for All to address the curriculum and instructional needs of the District.

Findings such as these (CGCS) heightened a sense of urgency that motivated a decision by PPS leadership to introduce the Excellence for All plan, a comprehensive, ambitious set of districtwide instructional improvement efforts aimed at promoting its goals through managed instruction. 

As part of the EFA strategy, the District contracted with various external partners to provide and/or support a host of educational interventions intended to improve classroom instruction, with the ultimate goal of increasing student achievement test scores. Macmillan and Kaplan K12 (or Kaplan) were contracted to provide curricula, pedagogical approaches, and assessment tools to support their curricula, as well as to provide training on their use. The Institute for Learning (IFL) was contracted to provide professional development (PD) focused on training school administrators and instructional coaches to be effective instructional leaders. America’s Choice (AC) was contracted to provide a comprehensive school reform design, incorporating each of the components of MI, in eight previously low performing schools that have been reconstituted as “Accelerated Learning Academies” (ALAs). (RAND Report, pg vii.)

What made EFA so significant was this was the first time the District implemented a completely external curriculum, instruction and assessment program that was not designed by Pittsburgh teachers and content supervisors. In the past, district staff would develop curriculums that included courses of study, pacing guidelines and accompanying assessments. They would then purchase a textbook that was aligned with the curriculum. The District content supervisors would provide the professional development necessary to implement the program. No doubt this break from the traditional PPS curriculum development process ruffled some feathers. Culturally, reaching outside of the District was a radical change. Four different partners made this an even greater challenge to manage.

The concept of "managed instruction" would not be an easy sell for teachers. "Managed Instruction"by definition takes away a teacher's autonomy and no longer allows for teacher input regarding content, pacing and pedagogy. Typically, when implementing "Managed Instruction", there is huge push back from the faculty, particularly from creative and engaged teachers who love their content and thrive on instructional creativity.

3. Empowering Effective Teachers Program (EET) - Starting in 2008, the District, in collaboration with the Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers embarked on its Empowering Effective Teachers Program. This effort was supported by $78 million from the Gates Foundation and the U.S. Department of Education. Here is what Superintendent Mark Roosevelt said at the time:

“This is a huge win for Pittsburgh,” said Superintendent Mark Roosevelt. “We know that excellent teachers matter. With the right skills, knowledge, support and inspiration, teachers can help students reach achievement levels that lead to college success or workforce certification. This funding will enable us to take that next step in our efforts to maximize teacher effectiveness and improve student achievement.”

The $78 million went to creating a teacher evaluation system, a student survey tool, creation of value added measures, professional development and teacher support mechanisms. This was a significant endeavor due to the collaboration necessary between the district and the teachers union. It focused on teacher evaluation, support and a career path that was attached to accountability.  A complete description of the program can be found on the District's website.

What was so radical about the Empowering Effective Teachers Program was that it would grade a teacher's performance using four factors:

1. Teacher Observations by Principal or Supervisor (50%) - RISE
2. Student Ratings via a Tripod survey (15%)
3. Teacher Value-Added Measure (VAM) using class test scores (30%)
4. School Value-Added Measure (VAM) using school test scores (5%)

This was the first time in the history of the District that teacher evaluations were connected to measures of accountability. And that accountability could (if the teacher agreed) be tied to additional compensation (if the standards were met). This issue of teacher accountability was the reason the Gates Foundation and DOE funded the project. As you might imagine, this raised the faculty's level of concern. Could the accountability system be honest, fair and constructive? 

4. The Pittsburgh Promise - The Pittsburgh Promise, created by Superintendent Roosevelt in 2006, promised Pittsburgh students $20,000 towards college tuition starting with the graduating class of 2008 and $40,000 starting with the class of 2012. For Pittsburgh, this was a groundbreaking concept. A city would provide its eligible graduating seniors with scholarships to college. It was built on a similar project in Kalamazoo Michigan. The Promise was an ambitious endeavor funded through grants and donations by local foundations and corporations. The major matching grant came from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC - $100 million). The creators and funders of the Pittsburgh Promise hoped that it would encourage parents to stay in the District and attract families from outside of Pittsburgh to move into the District.


Wow! These four simultaneous initiatives created an incredibly ambitious agenda for the school district.

• Right-sizing the District by closing schools and moving over 6000 students to new schools;
• Implementing a comprehensive curriculum, instruction and assessment program (EFA) that was managed through four partners external to the District; 
• Developing a new teacher accountability program which included a new union contract; and 
• Fundraising for and implementing a college scholarship program for all eligible Pittsburgh student. 

This was a lot to manage. It was a lot to digest and synthesize. The task of communicating the District's overall direction was complex. It was a challenge to get all of the stakeholders on board.

The 2006 Council of Great City School report sensed that Roosevelt and the District were possibly biting off more than they could chew. Their report included a "note of caution" to the ambitious Superintendent and School Board (pg. 74):

"As the district revamps its strategic direction, reorganizes its staff and schools, and builds a sense of urgency for the work ahead, the Council offers a note of caution. The many changes being pursued aggressively by the leadership may stretch staff too thinly and may risk the appearance of incoherence among those affected by the changes. It is important for the district to take the time to develop an organizing vision and rationale that unifies all of the changes.

The Council urges the district leadership to avoid the temptation to focus on structural changes rather than on the levers that could effect student achievement positively. The package of reforms needs to be rolled out in a coherent manner that the public and staff can understand and see how the changes fit together on behalf of greater student achievement. The staff and the teachers also need time to revamp their practices, gain new skills and knowledge, and develop new attitudes and expectations if the leadership’s reforms are to take root and be sustained over a prolonged period. Time will also be needed for the public to develop some sense of ownership and support for the reforms. These points do not constitute an argument to slow down or to dampen the leadership’s sense of urgency. Urgency is called for now more than ever. But these points do argue for taking the time to think through the reforms in a way that assures that they mesh seamlessly together, that unintended consequences are not created, and that the skills necessary to implement the reforms correctly are built."

This warning was prescient. The initiatives were bound to bump up against the existing culture and power structures in a large school district. They would directly affect nearly every teacher, principal, student and parent in the District. Would people really understand the big picture?

In retrospect, it was too much, too quick and too complex. It did not take into account the time and effort it takes for the stakeholders to understand and accept the new direction the District was taking. It did not take into account the profound effect of closing schools and moving students with little or no input from their parents. It never really paid attention to the needs, emotions, concerns and fears of the humans who were being acted upon. And it never honestly reached out to gain their input.

It was not a smooth ride. And Superintendent Roosevelt, the architect of the reform, moved on from the District after five years.

-----------------------------------------

2016 - 10 Years Later

Download Report

As stated, when Dr. Anthony Hamlet became the Superintendent of the Pittsburgh Public Schools, he requested a follow up review by the Council of Great City Schools. For those who are deeply invested in the Pittsburgh Public Schools, I would highly recommend downloading this report and reading it in its entirety.

At a minimum read the Summary and Discussion Pg. 108 -109. The 2017 CGCS report presents us with an opportunity to see whether the District succeeded at its ambitious agenda.

These are main the conclusions drawn in the 2017 review of the Pittsburgh Public Schools (pg. 108). 

"The district is now left with an instructional system that doesn’t work properly and a human capital system that can’t do what it was designed to do."  

"Paired with the district’s lack of research, data, and evaluation capacity to determine what works and what doesn’t, this leaves the school system with no clear direction or strategy for improving student achievement." 

"The instructional tools that the system has developed do not provide ample guidance to teachers and other school-based staff about what to teach and at what level of rigor." 

"... absenteeism is unusually high in Pittsburgh, and suspension rates are also high relative to other city school systems."  

"... instructional opportunities in the district, like access to Advanced Placement courses, were uneven from school to school." 

 "... the district’s organizational structure has become warped and misaligned as a result of all the reforms, and there is a marked lack of staff collaboration." 

"... the district also lacks some key staff positions like a chief financial officer and a budget director." 

"... the district may be underutilizing the resources it has at its disposal to support its schools and improve instructional programming."

During the tenure of both Superintendents from 2006 to 2016 student achievement remained flat. The achievement gap did not improve. The report concludes:

"The lesson to be learned from the Pittsburgh reforms is similar to the lessons of reform efforts implemented in other major cities: human capital reform without an instructional focus only gets a district so far in improving student achievement. What appears to have happened here in Pittsburgh was that the district pursued the human capital side of the work, but took its eye off of instructional improvements until just the last couple of years. Ultimately, the human capital side of the work in Pittsburgh was watered down to a point where it is now unable to discern which teachers are most effective and which ones are the least." (pg. 108)

I would suggest that focusing on teacher development (EET) while contracting out curriculum, instruction and assessment (EFA) was a contributing factor to divorcing "human capital reform" from "instructional improvements".

It also appears that the disruption and dissonance created by school closings, changes in faculty, and problems with curriculum ultimately had a secondary effect on many families in the District.

In September 2006 (when the reform began) there were 29,445 students K-12. In September 2016 (when Dr. Hamlet joined the District) there were 23,286. 

This was a student loss of 21% (over 6000 students) during these two administrations. During the same time, according to the US Census Bureau, the city of Pittsburgh lost 2.6% of its population. This would suggest that parents left the school district due to dissatisfaction with their child's education, not due to movement out of Pittsburgh for other reasons.

What was compelling about this loss of students was that it occurred at the same time as the implementation of the Pittsburgh Promise. One would have guessed that the college scholarship program would incentivize current students to stay in the system. Clearly the families were upset enough to leave the District schools and forgo the scholarship opportunity. I don't know how many students transferred to charters*, how many to private schools and how many moved out of the district. But it is safe to say that there were a significant number in each category.

*It should be noted that transferring to a Charter School in Pittsburgh maintained eligibility for the Pittsburgh Promise.   

It is now 2017 and in spite of the recommendations made in the 2006 CGCS report, the $74 million in grants to develop a program of teacher empowerment, the over $150 million donated to the Pittsburgh Promise and the efforts made to improve the instructional program in Pittsburgh, the district is the same, if not worse off, from a student achievement perspective than when it started the reforms in 2006.

---

The second part of this post looks at the impact of these school reforms on local Pittsburgh neighborhoods.

Wake Up Pittsburgh - The Impact on our Neighborhoods

This is the second post pertaining to the Pittsburgh Public School reforms from 2006 - 2016.  I recommend reading the Wake Up Pittsburgh - Ten Years of School Reform first. It reviews 10 years of reforms started in 2006 by Superintendent Mark Roosevelt and ends with the 2017 Council of Great City Schools Report to the Pittsburgh Public Schools.

This second post discusses the impact on three local neighborhoods as a result of the school reforms - specifically the "right-sizing" of the district that occurred in 2006. 

Now let's move on to the second Post-Gazette article and finish the story. 

---

Post Gazette Story II - February 21, 2017

The February P-G story I read pertained to the Environmental Charter School (ECS) and its application to expand in Pittsburgh.

Since it's initial Pittsburgh approval in 2008, the Environmental Charter School has had a huge waiting list. Annually there are over 300 students vying to enroll in their Kindergarten. With this type of demand, and the success they achieved, ECS considered opening another K-8 school and a high school for their graduates to attend. In 2014 the Environmental Charter School applied to the Pittsburgh Public Schools to expand accordingly. Their charter expansion was denied by PPS. "The board motion to deny stated the request failed to provide 'sufficient information'."

ECS reapplied with the additional information requested about its program in 2015 and was again denied by the District.

In 2016, ECS appealed the ruling to the Pennsylvania Charter School Appeal Board. In January, 2017 the appeal board approved the plan on a 5 to 1 vote.

Immediately upon approval, the District's solicitor, Ira Weiss, announced that he will file an appeal with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

"Mr. Weiss said the district believes Environmental Charter’s demographics aren’t representative of the city school system as a whole, and that its expansions don’t have the environmental link with Frick Park."

Here is what the District is referring to regarding demographics. Note the difference between the K-8 PPS average and ECS in the categories of White, AA and Low SES.

By referring to the difference in demographics the District is opening a can of worms. 

First, the demographics of a charter school is not a criteria for denying a charter (PA Charter School Law). 

Second, as long as ECS follows state guidelines pertaining to admissions, there should not be a problem. Does the District have a problem with their admissions procedures? Mention was made of the sibling preference rule that applies at many charters, but frankly, that rule was first used in District magnets schools. The rule exists for the convenience of the parents and the family. 

Arguing about demographics suggests that the District believes there is a basic "lack of fairness" in the state law. I'm guessing that they believe that allowing school choice via charters creates a sort of "private school" scenario.

Of course, the Solicitor and the District know that the charter school law does not allow private school exclusivity (through high tuition rates, entrance requirements or expelling students who don't conform to the academic or behavioral standards.)

The Environmental Charter School, for that matter all Pennsylvania charter schools, must have a process of application and acceptance that is fair, non-biased, and uses a lottery to ensure openness to all students. No one can be denied admission. Here is the ECS Student Application Process if you'd like to review it. It is not against the law to have a different demographic than the district as a whole. In fact, many individual schools in PPS are different demographically from the district as a whole (e.g. Pittsburgh Westinghouse 6-12 which is 97% AA.)

The Solicitor and the District are also arguing that the ECS expansions "don't have the environmental link with Frick Park." This is a simple minded and foolish argument if you look into the facts. The proposed ECS K-8 expansion would be at Fort Pitt Elementary School in Garfield (4 miles away from Frick Park). The High School expansion would be at the Letsche School in the Hill District (6 miles away). Does the District really expect a link to Frick Park? The new schools would use the natural resources near their location to envision the environmental aspects of the curriculum. This is a city of hills, creek beds, rivers, parks and more greenery than most cities in the world. Is there no "natural environment" in Garfield or the Hill District?

The District is simply being difficult. Their objection that the Environmental Charter School has too many white students and not enough poor students is embarrassing. Both expansion schools would be opening in buildings that were shut down by the District. The K-8 school would draw from a Garfield neighborhood that is mainly African American with high levels of poverty. The high school would draw from the greater Pittsburgh population and would mirror the District demographics because the high school is centrally located on the edge of Downtown (much like City Charter High School).

The District acts like they don't understand the politics of race in this city. Yet they are playing it with their charter schools. Let's remember that it was the Pittsburgh Public Schools that decided to segregate their school district when they began to eliminate magnets and move to neighborhood K-8 schools.

The District argument is not about demographics, race or where the park is. The District simply is not interested in approving any new charter schools. It doesn't want the competition. It doesn't want the drain on their budget. It doesn't want charters. So they put the lawyers to work.

We will have to wait and see if the District gets their day in court, or whether the new Environmental Charter K-8 and High School are allowed to open.

---

Two stories about the Pittsburgh Public Schools appearing one month apart.  One pertaining to a Council of Great City School report that reviews the current status of the Pittsburgh Public Schools. The other about a Pittsburgh charter school attempting to expand and the District's fight to deny the expansion.

Why would I juxtapose these two stories in this two part blog post?

The 2016 CGCS report describes a school district that has lost its way. I very much believe that Mark Roosevelt and Linda Lane wanted to make the Pittsburgh Public Schools great. I understand the thinking behind these initiatives. But this was a lot of change for a parochial, neighborhood-based city. The changes were top down. They were paternalistic. The Superintendent and the Board felt they knew what was best, and the parents, the families, the students and the staff were expected to go along... quietly.

I believe the closing of Schenley High School was the straw that broke the camel's back. The parents did not go quietly. One way families responded was to withdraw their children from District schools. One out of five students left district schools since the reforms began in 2006. That is a damning statistic.

My conversations with District teachers, board members, parents and supporters of traditional public education have generated many beliefs about why the District is doing so poorly. Supporters of traditional public education:

• blame the state government for their problems because of decreased funding (even though the CGCS report states there is plenty of funding on hand that is underutilized);
• blame the federal government because they hated No Child Left Behind and its abusive testing;
• blame the charter schools because they take funding from the school district and suggest they are similar to "private schools".
• blame the Union and the Teachers; 
• blame the School Board and the Administrators. 

Fingers point everywhere.

Something significant happened during the timeframe in question (2006 - 2016) in the Pittsburgh Public Schools that no one wants to talk about. I would suggest that the stakeholders would rather place blame on external sources then do the research and connect the dots.

During the same timeframe that Mr. Roosevelt and Dr. Lane "reformed" Pittsburgh education, closed 22 neighborhood schools and displaced 6000 students, three charter schools opened in Pittsburgh - the Environmental Charter K-8, Propel Hazelwood K-8 and Propel Northside K-8. Why did these charter schools open up? And why did they open up in those particular neighborhoods?

During the same timeframe that the District closed 22 schools and displaced 6000 students, nearly every private school in Pittsburgh expanded their capacity - Ellis, Winchester, Oakland Catholic, Central Catholic, the Neighborhood Academy, Imani Christian Academy and Pittsburgh Urban Christian School. Was this a coincidence? Why were they expanding at this place and time? And who were the students that filled this new capacity?

Let's look at three neighborhood case studies during this time period, to try and answer these questions and connect the dots.

Regent Square and the Environmental Charter School

I have already blogged on the Regent Square story in depth.  Have a read and you will learn about what occurred in terms of schools in that community. Let's take a quick look specifically from 2006 to 2016.

The neighborhoods east of Squirrel Hill in the city are Swisshelm Park, Point Breeze, Regent Square, Homewood South and East Hills. Let's look at how schools in that community were effected by the reforms of 2006 - 2016. Note: the racial and socio-economic demographics are significant to this discussion.

• Park Place is a small community north of Regent Square and bordering Point Breeze. This area is mixed race, similar to the Environmental Charter School demographic. PPS closed Park Place Elementary School in 1974. 
• Swisshelm Park is a small secluded community that is almost entirely white and working class. PPS closed Swisshelm Park Elementary School pre-2006.
• Regent Square is a small community (that includes Pittsburgh, Swissvale, Edgewood and Wilkinsburg). The Pittsburgh portion of Regent Square is almost entirely white middle class. PPS closed Regent Square Elementary School in 2004. 
• East Hills is dominated by a low income housing development at the far east border of the city. Students from East Hills either were bused to Regent Square or Crescent Elementary School (Homewood) or attended East Hill Elementary School. East Hills Elementary School was a foreign language magnet that was racially balanced. PPS closed East Hills Elementary School in 2006. It also closed Crescent Elementary School as a neighborhood school and converted it to be part of the consolidated Helen Faison K-8 school.  

Are you getting the picture? The district left these communities high and dry. Currently, students who live in Swisshelm Park, Regent Square, Park Place or East Hills, are bused from 3 to 5 miles outside of their community to attend schools in either Homewood or Squirrel Hill. Once the district closed these community schools, they sold them to developers or community organizations. You can guess what happened. Charter or private schools opened up in them. 

The Environmental Charter School opened initially in Regent Square Elementary School (purchased from the District) and than expanded to Park Place School (purchased from a developer). The Imani Christian Academy (private school) bought East Hills Elementary School from the District.  

The Pittsburgh Public Schools will tell you that there were not enough students to sustain these neighborhood schools. Yet now they have reopened as charters or private schools and have waiting lists. They are filling up with the students from the neighborhoods around the schools. The District, through their Solicitor, argues that the Environmental Charter School demographics don't match the District's demographics. He is correct. They match the demographics of the communities they are located in. Does this surprise you?

Hazelwood and the Propel-Hazelwood Charter School

Hazelwood is a remote community on the Monongahela river. It was a classic steel town that was home to the Jones and Laughlin Steel plant.  Since 1980 Hazelwood has seen hard times. Most of the population is poor, unemployed and elderly. It is a mixed race low income community.  

Hazelwood had two Pittsburgh Public Schools - Burgwin Elementary School and Gladstone Middle/High School.  

• PPS closed Gladstone High School in 1976. At that point high school students were bused either 3 miles up the hill to Squirrel Hill (Allderdice HS) or 7 miles across the river to Beechview (Brashear HS). Gladstone was converted to a middle school. 
• PPS closed Gladstone Middle School permanently in the late 1990's and the students were bused 6 miles to East Liberty (Reizenstein MS) or remained in an expanded Burgwin ES.  
• PPS closed Burgwin K-7 School permanently in 2006. Students from Hazelwood were bused over 3 miles across the river to Mifflin Elementary School in Lincoln Place.  

Thus in 2006 Hazelwood had no schools. The Pittsburgh Public Schools will tell you that there were not enough students to sustain a neighborhood school in Pittsburgh. Yet, in 2013 a group of concerned citizens from Hazelwood, approached Propel Schools - a charter school group that worked in the Monongahela Valley. They asked Propel to open a school in their community. Read this again. A group of parents in a Pittsburgh neighborhood, where all the public schools were closed, went to a charter school group and asked them to open a school in their community.

Propel submitted a plan to the school district and was approved to open a K-8 school in the old Burgwin Elementary School. Propel Hazelwood Charter School currently has 260 students K-6. The demographics of the school match the demographics of the community: 78% Black, 10% White, 6% Multi-racial, 4% Hispanic, 85% low income and 13% special needs.  Does this surprise you?

North Side and the Manchester Academic and the Propel North Side Charter Schools

The North Side is an area that was once called Allegheny City.  It was incorporated into Pittsburgh in 1907. In the map to the right, it is the yellow region north of the Allegheny River. The North Side has 18 unique neighborhoods.


In the year 2000, the North Side had:

• 2 high schools (Oliver and Perry), 
• 3 middle schools (Allegheny, Schiller and Columbus) 
• 8 elementary schools (Chatham, Clayton, King, Manchester, Morrow, Spring Garden, Spring Hill). 
• It also had a Catholic K-8 school and High School (North Catholic).  

Since that time, 4 elementary schools (Chatham ES, Clayton ES, Mann ES, Spring Garden ES), 1 middle school (Columbus MS) and one high school (Oliver HS) were closed. And both Catholic Schools closed. The District closed 4 out of 8 elementary schools. They moved the students into Pittburgh King K-8 or to a new elementary in the Allegheny Middle School Building.

There are two Charter Schools in the North Side.  Let's look at how they came about.


Manchester Academic Charter School

Manchester is Pittsburgh's largest historical neighborhood. It is filled with beautiful Victorian homes that have been renovated. It has an area with modern split level homes that were built in the early 1970s. And it also has many small dilapidated houses that are rentals. The population of Manchester is majority black. The neighborhood has wealthy, middle class and poor residents. Pittsburgh Manchester Elementary School was and is the only public school in Manchester (other than Conroy which is a Pittsburgh school for students with special needs.)

In the 1960's Manchester was a poor, primarily black neighborhood with few resources for children: there was no community center, no health center, no grocery store, the public school was extremely low performing and there were few if any after school or weekend programs for children. This changed in 1968.

Dr. Betty and Rev. James Robinson established the Manchester Youth Development Center (MYDC) in 1968 to serve the needs of Manchester’s large population of children and youth. They expanded their focus to early childhood in 1979 with the opening of the Training Wheels community preschool, and again in the early 1990s, when they founded a small, community-centered, private elementary school located within MYDC.

In 1998, the Pittsburgh Board of Education granted a charter to the Manchester Academic School, one of the first in the region. Today, MACS, MYDC and Training Wheels operate in a shared facility, providing high-quality education and enrichment to children from early childhood through middle school. MACS serves over 300 children from the Northside and communities throughout Allegheny County. 

The state of Pennsylvania passed its charter school law in 1997. Betty and James Robinson saw this as an opportunity to provide wrap around services to students in Manchester (and the greater North Side). They converted their private elementary school to a K-8 charter. The school filled up immediately and now serves 326 students. The school serves students from a majority of the 18 North Side neighborhoods. Manchester Academic Charter School is an accredited national Blue Ribbon school.

A stones throw from Manchester Academic Charter (326 students) sits Pittsburgh Manchester K-8 (198 students). The charter school has 128 more students than the District school. Can you guess why? It's because the neighborhood trusts Betty and James Robinson to do right by their children. They invested their lives in Manchester. It is also because the charter school is drawing from the other North Side neighborhoods that were abandoned by the school district. Does this surprise you?


Propel Northside

In 2006, the District via "right sizing" closed four North Side elementary schools and one middle school. North Side parents were up in arms. Their children would be bused out of their neighborhoods and sent to one of two schools with students from other neighborhoods. This was a concern. The North Side, made up of 18 distinct neighborhoods, suffering from segregation, poverty and a hilly topography that created natural barriers between communities, is and was filled with turf wars. Gangs proliferate. Public safety is an issue. When students are asked to leave their neighborhoods, they worry about fights, bullying and are susceptible to falling into the street life.

Sending students from their small neighborhood schools to Pittsburgh King K-8 was worrisome. First, Pittsburgh King K-8 has over 600 students versus the local neighborhood schools that were around 250 students. Second, the student achievement at Pittsburgh King K-8 is one of the lowest in the state. Third, it mixed students from feuding neighborhoods thus creating safety concerns for parents and students.

A group of parents approached Propel Schools and asked them to open a charter school on the North Side. Propel applied for a charter from the District and opened in 2011. Not surprisingly, they opened in the recently closed Pittsburgh Columbus Middle School. They currently serve 405 students (K-8).

Take a look at the demographics of the two Pittsburgh Public K-8 schools on the North Side, the Pittsburgh partial magnet middle school (Schiller) and the two North Side charter schools. You will notice that the two charters have higher poverty than the public schools. You will also notice that Manchester Academic Charter School is 100% African-American.


I wonder if the Board or its Solicitor ever complained that the charter schools on the North Side aren't demographically consistent with the overall PPS demographics... or whether they were essentially a publicly funded "private school". Too many poor and African American students. Nope... they never said a word. The District complains when a charter has too many white students or non-poverty students, but remains quiet when it has too many black students.

Let's be honest... Pittsburgh is a segregated city. And unfortunately, its schools are as well. Local school demographics reflects the community they are located in. And once the District moved to K-8 neighborhood schools, the District schools became segregated by neighborhood. Neighborhood K-8 charters are no different.

---

So let's get back to the original questions.

Why did these charter schools open up? And where did they open? And why did the private schools expand? 

Here is the obvious answer.

New charter schools open and existing private schools expand when the traditional public schools are faltering or abandon a neighborhood. Parents in these neighborhoods are looking for options for their children. Some can afford to move, some can afford tuition at a private ro parochial school, some attend a magnet school and some have no other options... so they ask a charter school to open in their community. But they have to do something... because they want the best for their children.  

Actually the Pittsburgh Public Schools does understand this. Look at the success of Pittsburgh Magnet Schools (aka "Schools of Choice"). CAPA, OBAMA, Sci-Tech High Schools are all excelling and have no problem attracting students. They are examples of how the district used an internal choice mechanism to keep people in the District. And by the way, their demographics don't match those of the District as a whole. No one says a word.

Charter Schools like PROPEL, Manchester Academic and the Environmental Charter opened up to meet a neighborhood need for a safe, quality school that would become invested in the community. They were asked by the community to do so. They were asked because the Pittsburgh Public Schools abandoned a local neighborhood.

The Pittsburgh Public Schools mission statement states:

The Pittsburgh Public Schools will be one of America’s premier school districts, student-focused, well-managed, and innovative.

We will hold ourselves accountable for preparing all children to achieve academic excellence and strength of character, so that they have the opportunity to succeed in all aspects of life.

PPS sees itself as the local conduit for educating children. They don't see themselves as the foundation of a neighborhood. They don't see themselves as a caring institution that will meet the social, cognitive, mental/physical/emotional health needs of its students and their families. PPS doesn't seem to understand that they are often the only institutional resource in a neighborhood. They are the hub of activity. They are where parents go for fund raisers, plays, ball games and graduations. They are where children go to get educated, to find friends, to get their vision/hearing checked, to get counseling, to get fed, to get love.

Schools that work in the urban core address multiple barriers to education: over 70% poverty, broken families, unemployment and crime. Basic commodities like food, medicine, health care, transportation, public parks and recreation don't exist in many urban neighborhoods. Police stations, fire stations, libraries and hospitals don't have a presence in these neighborhoods.

The Pittsburgh Public Schools have never acknowledged this. Yet often they are the only institutional presence in a neighborhood. So when they abandon a community - the North Side, Hazelwood, Regent Square - they make many of our students and families feel forsaken.

What did the District save by "right sizing"? By closing 22 schools?

The changes approved Tuesday night as part of the reorganization of Pittsburgh Public Schools reduce the number of buildings the district runs from 80 to 63 and will result in a savings of $10.3 million in the first year.  (Pittsburgh Trib)

The District budget at the time was over $600 million. The savings created by closing these schools represented less than 2% of the budget. Clearly there was little to gain financially. Superintendent Roosevelt would argue that he was using this "right sizing" as an opportunity to close the lowest performing schools (based on a Rand Report.) I'm guessing he wanted to get a fresh start and not be hindered by existing extremely low performing schools. The price for this "fresh start" was the abandonment of local neighborhoods.

Keep the schools in their local neighborhoods. Make them better. Put in Pre-K, put in a full time nurse and social worker, allow the neighborhood to use the gym, provide a quality breakfast and lunch program, find a quality school leader and let them stay in the school and the community for a minimum of 10 years. What a radical thought. Invest in our neighborhoods.

And you wonder why parents reach out to charter schools to join their community.

Wake Up Pittsburgh! 

Quit complaining and bad mouthing the charter schools and get to work. It is lazy thinking. It represents old provincial Pittsburgh thinking. Help our communities. Stand up and take on the responsibility that Pittsburgh should have to its neighborhoods. Or step aside and let someone else take your place in the community.

One warning... though I doubt you will listen.

You closed Schenley High School, Vann Elementary School, Madison Elementary School and Miller Elementary School in the Hill District. The Hill District is another abandoned neighborhood.

You closed Belmar Elementary School, Crescent Elementary School, Reizenstein Middle School, Pittsburgh CAPA (in Homewood) and have so screwed up Westinghouse High School that it may never recover. Homewood is another abandoned neighborhood.

You closed Sheraden Elementary School, Chartiers Elementary School, Stevens Elementary School, and Langley High School. The West End is another abandoned neighborhood.

Don't complain if these communities ask a charter school to open in their neighborhood. If one does, it was because Pittsburgh and the Pittsburgh Public Schools abandoned the neighborhood. That was the unintended consequence of the Pittsburgh Public School reforms and "right sizing" the District.

I'm OK with a charter school opening in those communities. But I would rather have PPS wake up and get it right.

Superintendent Hamlet, Mayor Peduto, Pittsburgh City Council, Pittsburgh School Board....

We are running out of time to get this right.

WAKE UP!

My Take on Betsy DeVos

I haven't written a blogpost since June 8, 2016.  Frankly, I thought I was done blogging. Over the four years since I retired from public education, I published 56 posts on this blog. It was a cathartic experience, getting a lot off my chest... and hopefully providing some insight into public education in the late 20th and early 21st century in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and the United States.

I was done... Time to move on. There was nothing else to write about without becoming a redundant, whiny old man.

Than my cousin sent me the following note:

I’m not well versed in the education circles and conversations, so I’d love to hear your take on Betsy Devos, charter schools, public schools, education vouchers, education in general. I think I heard you were blogging about education. If there is a link to that, I’d love to follow your thoughts. Or any thoughts you’d like to share would be appreciated.

Frankly, I've been asked that question numerous times by friends, relatives and even the news media in the last 4 weeks. So I thought this might be a good time to stretch out and talk about our newly appointed Secretary of Education.

---

Betsy DeVos is the new Secretary of Education of the United States of America. She was nominated by our President, Donald Trump, and was approved by the Senate in a 51-50 vote. Vice President Pence, in a historical precedent for approving cabinet appointments, cast the tie breaking vote for her to gain approval.

So what is it that Secretary DeVos is being asked to do?  

Let's get some background on the U.S. Department of Education. It may surprise you to know that the federal government is not responsible for education in the United States. Education is not mentioned or mandated in our Constitution. Thus according to the 10th Amendment, if there is to be public education, it is the responsibility of the individual states to make it happen. There are 50 separate state departments of education each creating and overseeing the education laws of their particular state. In order to execute these laws, each state delegates responsibility for education to local school districts. Education (i.e. schools) is a local activity. There are over 16,000 school districts (each with their own elected school board and Superintendent) in the United States. So unlike the rest of the world, where countries provide and manage education from a central federal authority, the U.S. has over 16,000 governing bodies overseeing education. Funding for school districts is localized as well. Each district has a unique property tax base and tax rate (i.e. millage), and a different level of financial contribution from the state and federal budgets for education. Each has different programs of instruction and guidelines for graduation. Frankly, this is what makes U.S. education so unwieldy... and hard to reform.

The federal government is involved in education only insofar as it guarantees equal protection under the law for its citizens. One of the first instances of the federal government getting involved in public education was the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court ruling in 1954. In Brown, a group of black parents brought suit against their local school districts under the premise that receiving a separate and segregated education denied their children equal protection under the law. Their claim was that the black schools were not given equal access to resources, funds, teachers, transportation, etc. They were asking the courts to overrule the concept of "Separate but Equal" (Plessy v. Ferguson) and force integration hoping to provide equal access to quality schools. The court ruled in their favor. This ruling ordered states to cease and desist segregation in public schools. The court than ruled in a followup hearing in 1955 that eliminating segregation must be done by localities "with all deliberate speed." As an example of how unwieldy U.S. public education is it should be noted that our schools (and neighborhoods) remain segregated to this day.

The Brown v. Board of Education ruling was followed by decades of federal laws and policies attempting to guarantee equal access to a quality education for all students. Consideration of equal access was expanded from students of color, to students in poverty (Title I, 1965) and finally to students with disabilities (IDEA, 1975).

Due to the local nature of public education in the U. S., the federal government has found it difficult to provide equal access to quality education across the country. The Department of Education's strategy has been to provide supplemental funding (Title I and IDEA) for students in need. This supplemental federal funding currently represents 6% of the total education funding (federal, state, local) in the United States.

The President's budget request for FY 2017 includes $69.4 billion in discretionary funding, an increase of $1.3 billion over the 2016 appropriation. The Department's elementary and secondary programs annually serve nearly 16,900 school districts and approximately 50 million students attending more than 98,000 public schools and 28,000 private schools. Department programs also provide grant, loan, and work-study assistance to more than 13 million postsecondary students. (USDOE)

Of the funding provided for education by the federal government, the three main programs are:

• Pell Grants for lower income college students - 41% 
• ESEA: Title I (Disadvantaged Students due to Poverty) - 27% 
• IDEA: Special Education (Disabled Students) - 21%

The ESEA Title I funding supports reading specialists and classroom aides to work with students in poverty who are reading below grade level. IDEA funding supports special education teachers who work closely with students who have learning, behavioral or physical disabilities. As one can see, the federal government is rather limited in its reach into public education. And consequently, it has had a very modest effect at best on achieving its goal of quality education and equal access.

The U.S. Department of Education is a rather new cabinet level department. In 1953, Congress created a cabinet level office called the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW).  Not only did HEW concern itself with education equity, but it addressed affordable housing and the living conditions of the poor. In 1979, President Jimmy Carter recommended that Education become its own Department and Congress created it in 1981.

 "The Secretary of Education is responsible for the overall direction, supervision, and coordination of all activities of the Department and is the principal adviser to the President on Federal policies, programs and activities related to education in the United States."

Simply put, the U.S. Department of Education's responsibility, under it's newly appointed Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, is to fulfill the mission of the Department:

ED's mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. (USDOE)

Why is everyone up in arms over Betsy DeVos?

It's only been four weeks since the inauguration of Donald Trump and it is apparent that he wants to not just rock the boat, he wants to sink the boat and create a new luxury liner. The cabinet appointments that he has chosen have a consistent world view. The new cabinet nominees are quite wealthy (worth over $14 billion). 15 out of 20 cabinet members are white males. They are very conservative politically and often devout Christians. They often work in the largest corporations in America (e.g. Exxon, Goldman Sachs, Amway, Ameritrade, Blackwater.) They believe that our country is a mess and needs to be "Made Great Again". They have little respect for government in general and it's programs in particular. They have little confidence that traditional public institutions such as schools, universities, libraries, arts organizations, public television/radio are being run in an efficient manner. They believe in the free market. They believe in private enterprise. They believe competition creates accountability. They believe the only real reason to have a federal government is to equip a military to protect us from the rest of the world. 

This brings us to Betsy DeVos. Secretary DeVos is a life long member of the Calvinistic Reformed Christian church. She went to Christian schools for K12, and graduated from Calvin Christian College with a bachelor's degree in Business Administration and Politics. She married into wealth; her husband is the heir of the Amway fortune. The DeVos family are billionaires. The DeVos children were educated through home schooling and Christian private schools. The DeVos family has donated huge sums of money to Republican candidates and conservative causes. Betsy DeVos became the head of the Michigan Republican Party and her husband served on the Michigan State Board of Education.

Betsy DeVos has little or no first hand knowledge about public education. She has no academic background in education. Her frame of reference is Christian, business oriented and politically driven. It is not hard to see that she believes the answers to the education problems in this country lie in the free market. She has no problem with public dollars being used for students to attend private and parochial schools. It is telling that she wants private charter schools rather than public charter schools. Evidently she believes that the profit motive is the answer to shaking loose U.S. education inertia. She has no interest in working with public schools, in fact, she sees them as the problem not the cure. It is not a stretch to say that like her boss President Trump, she was hired as the Secretary of Education to "drain the education swamp." She wants the federal government out of public education. And she wants the free market to get deeply involved in education, especially in urban areas.

Betsy DeVos became involved politically in Detroit education advocating for school vouchers and for-profit charter schools. It is important to digress and make sure we understand what a school voucher and a for-profit charter school are about. The majority of funding for public education comes from local school property taxes. Wealthier neighborhoods have higher valued homes and generate more public revenue for their local schools. Areas of poverty have very low valued homes (more often rentals) that generate less public revenue from property taxes. Schools in poor neighborhoods have less resources, lower teacher salaries and students with multiple barriers to success. These barriers include low income, unemployment, poor nutrition, lack of access to quality schools, lack of access to basic necessities such as groceries, transportation and healthcare, family disintegration, high crime, etc. It is not surprising that when public schools are rank ordered by high stakes test scores, it is the poorest neighborhoods that are at the bottom of the list.

To address this problem, Betsy DeVos is suggested two alternatives.

• School Vouchers - In this scenario, students are given a voucher that represents the taxes that have been allocated for his/her education. So if a school district spends $11,000 for every student they teach, the district would offer an $11,000 voucher to every parent in the district. In theory, families could then spend that voucher on a private, parochial or public school of choice. 

• For-Profit Charter Schools - Charter Schools are independent public schools that are chartered by the state, the local school districts or other chartering organizations (such as a university.) Every state has different rules for its charters. In general they must comply with state public school requirements. They are offered freedom to develop their own methodologies, curriculums, culture, etc.  The vast majority (87%) of charters are non-profit organizations with school boards and staffs that are credentialed teachers. A small percentage (13%) are run by for-profit companies. Secretary DeVos believes that for-profit charters would be better able to scale up quickly and create higher student achievement.   

In essence what Secretary DeVos is considering would be to take Department of Education funding, and rather than using it to support supplemental support programs in public schools, the DOE would use the funding to provide vouchers and choice options for these students. This, she believes, would provide equal access. 

Can Secretary DeVos' plan work?

In 2013, 87% of students attended public schools in the U.S. 4% attended charter schools; thus 91% of our students went to a publicly funded school free of charge (no tuition.) Of course nothing is free. These schools are funded with tax dollars.

A small group of U.S. students attend private schools (9%). Of the students who attend private schools, close to four out of five attend private sectarian schools (Catholic, Christian, Jewish, Muslum, etc.). These schools are funded primarily through church subsidies and tuition payments by parents. Only 2% of U.S. students attend non-sectarian private schools. These private schools (academies) are the education venue for exclusive wealthy families who pay tuitions that are often as high as college tuitions. These schools are extremely selective.

Private schools, religious or otherwise, do not have to accept all students. They do not have to provide special education for students with disabilities. They can expel a student who is causing problems. If they don't offer scholarships, they don't enroll students in poverty. They are not held accountable to any of the state standards such as teacher certifications or standardized tests of accountability. They are playing by a different set of rules than public education.

Secretary DeVos wants to hand every child a voucher and let them choose a school without finances being an issue. To accomplish this she would need a legion of high performing for-profit charter schools and private schools that students could choose from. She is willing to consider public charters and magnet schools as well. It's about choice.

This begs the very important question, will a market driven education system improve the achievement of our children? 

There are a number of logistical and practical issues to consider before I will answer this question. Let's assume students in the U.S. were given a voucher to purchase an education for their children. Here are some key questions that would have to be addressed. 

Which Students - Is Secretary DeVos talking about all students, or just suburban students or urban students or black students or white students or Christian students or students living in poverty? If she really offered vouchers to everyone, could a student use the voucher to attend a neighboring district school? Could an urban student use a voucher to attend a suburban school. If so, than school district borders would eventually be compromised as students accessed schools outside of their district. 

Funding Inequities - What would be the value of a voucher? Some vouchers would be worth more than others.  Secretary DeVos would have to address the funding inequities of our current system. I doubt the public would abide their property taxes paying for students who attend schools in the next district over.  

Scaling - 87% of all students in the U.S. currently attend public schools. If Secretary DeVos were to scrap the system that educates nearly 9 out of 10 students, she would have to scale the choice schools (charter, private, parochial) up in a rapid fashion. How long would it take to create enough private, parochial and charter schools to handle such a large population? Is such a thing feasible?

Accountability - How would we hold all these choice schools accountable to a consistent and well defined set of outcomes? Secretary DeVos would say that the free market has accountability embedded in it. It does have accountability with respect to parent choice. But it would not have accountability with respect to education and academic attainment. Parents often choose schools based on safety, convenience and extra curricular activities rather than academic strength. 

Equity - How is Secretary DeVos going to deal with the issue of schools not educating special needs students, or throwing students out that are non-conforming, or schools that self-segregate by race, gender or socio-economics? Does she care about equal access?

Religion -  The 1st amendment to the Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Is it constitutional to have tax dollars support private, parochial education? The Supreme Court has ruled it is not. 

Transportation - Once you engage in a school choice agenda for all students, you must have a robust transportation system to move students to their chosen school. This raises costs substantially. It is prohibitive in rural areas. And it begs the question of whether a urban black male student could choose to attend a white suburban school. Secretary DeVos, due to her wealthy perspective, hasn't considered a family that must take public transportation to get to school. 

So beyond these logistical issues, let's contemplate the original question. 

Will a market driven education system improve the achievement of our children?

NAEP Executive Summary

In 2006 the National Assessment of Educational Process (NAEP) published the results of a research study entitled Comparing Private Schools and Public Schools Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling. The comparison looked at 4th and 8th grade mathematics and reading scores on the NAEP test. Over 5000 public schools and 500 private schools were tested at each grade level. 

When the test results were compared, the private schools had superior achievement. 

However, when student and school characteristics were taken into account the results were nearly identical, even when differentiating between private parochial and private non-sectarian. 

The only difference pertained to Conservative Christian schools which lagged far behind public schools in mathematics.  

"Among the student characteristics considered were gender, race/ethnicity, disability status, and identification as an English language learner. Among the school characteristics considered were school size and location, and composition of the student body and of the teaching staff. In particular, if the student populations enrolled in the two types of schools differed systematically with respect to background characteristics related to achievement, then those differences would be confounded with straightforward comparisons between school types."

So what does this tell us. This research suggests that the tuition based private and parochial schools by definition attract a population that is wealthier, less in need of special education, less in need of ELL services and more homogenous. It suggests that class size and school size might be much smaller than in the public schools. It suggests that the public schools, particularly those in poor communities, deal with a set of circumstances that can inhibit learning and achievement. It also suggests that the Conservative Christian approach personally experienced by Secretary DeVos is the least successful sector in this study.  This begs the question of whether private schools have the necessary understanding or insight into educating populations that are diverse, from lower socio-economic circumstances and/or have learning disabilities. The answer to that question is, as a whole, they do not.

When economists, social scientists, politicians and businessmen advocate for private school education, or parochial school education or vouchers or privately run charter schools they are applying market based pragmatics to a human service field. They take education and strip it of its nuance and complexity and liken it to manufacturing widgets. The NAEP study proves that student characteristics are a prime factor in student achievement. And school characteristics, particularly pertaining to the quality of teaching staff, school culture and school leadership are relevant to discussions of achievement.  

If Secretary DeVos was an education expert, she might know about the lessons learned in Finland pertaining to teacher development and training. Or the value in a process oriented education vs. one based on basic facts and memorization. 

She might be aware of how quality public charter and private sectarian schools are designed with a deep understanding of "student and school characteristics" and that achieve extraordinary success with our poorest most needy populations in the U.S. She would also be aware that many charter and private schools do not succeed because they do not use best practices with respect to "student and school characteristics."

She would have visited Milwaukee to see an extraordinary effort to transform schools and create 20,000 quality seats of education. 

Creating quality schools is extremely hard work. Especially when you are working with at-risk rural and urban populations. It involves developing quality leadership, a high-performing faculty, a data driven methodology, a culture of caring and support, a high standard that everyone is accountable to, and a method of rewarding staff and students when they succeed.

Secretary DeVos.

The free market's mission is to generate profit. Thus when the private sector engages in education, they simplify the system, teach the basics, and measure achievement on simple minded assessments that have little to do with knowledge gained and knowledge applied. And they pay little or no attention to the needs of their student body.

I'm all for giving parent's choice. But if your choice is limited to schools that aren't performing, you have offered nothing. Quality schools are created through use of best practices and developing a common culture of success. Choice doesn't do this. A deep understanding of school culture, curriculum, instruction, assessment and student/teacher support does this. And a passionate, informed education leader does this.

With all due respect, your choice agenda will not work. You want to make America Great Again. Here's the bad news. From an education perspective, America was never great. Education in the United States has always centered on the best students in the best neighborhoods. Prior to the late 1800's school was not mandatory. Prior to the end of WWII, high school was not mandatory. Up to 1980, we did not attempt to teach all students beyond basic reading, writing and arithmetic. In Pittsburgh, prior to 1980, if you had a 5th grade reading level, could do some basic arithmetic and had a strong back, you could work in the steel mill and make a middle class life. Those days are gone.

Now we need to educate everyone, and at a much higher level. 21st century education is a complex, multi-dimensional undertaking.  This is particularly true in the United States due to our economic, ethnic and racial diversity. It is made even more difficult by our lack of central educational planning and balkanized local school structure. If you look at the countries who lead the world in education - South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore and Finland - they all have a centralized system, with high standards for achievement, teacher quality and accountability.  These countries see education as a national imperative. The United States sees education as a commodity.

Thinking that a free-market approach to education will "Make America Great Again" in education is extremely short sighted. It's as if we believe a free-market approach allowed the McDonalds Corporation to find a way to create great nutrition. It didn't. It succeeded at creating huge profits and huge Americans.