Everything changes, yet schools stay the same...

When I was two years old, in 1955, my family moved to Euclid, Ohio. Euclid was an all white, working class neighborhood about 5 miles outside of Cleveland. There were approximately 65,000 people living in Euclid.  There were many thriving companies based in Euclid: Chase Brass Copper, Addressograph Multigraph, Lincoln Electric, the Euclid Truck Co., Reliance Electric and Thompson Products (TRW). With so many companies in our town, Euclid residents had the lowest property taxes in all of Ohio. Our house cost $12,000 in 1955. I loved living in Euclid. We knew all of our neighbors. There were plenty of kids to play with and there were ball fields everywhere. My mother stayed home and raised us... Dad worked. Jobs were plentiful.  

In 2012, Euclid is a far different community. The population has dropped to 48,000 people. All of the companies mentioned above closed or left town. The Euclid Square Mall opened in 1977 and is now empty. There are no major employers in Euclid. The town's demographics have changed, the community is mixed race with an equal split between White and African-American and a relatively small Hispanic population. My elementary school is gone. Obviously much has changed.  

My schooling, in both Euclid and Lyndhurst, Ohio was typical for public schools at the time. It was aligned with a time when jobs were plentiful. Entry level jobs required basic skills in reading and arithmetic. A high school diploma suggested that you had acquired those skills. Most jobs in the companies mentioned above consisted of completing repetitive tasks often in short time periods. Many of the tasks to be performed were in isolation, meaning you worked on an assembly line. Following directions was key. And maintaining quality work over many repetitions was the goal.  This was not only true on the factory floor, but in the administrative office as well.  

Think about middle and high school as an assembly line. School went for 180 days. There were 7 periods a day, 45 minute periods with a 5 minute break between periods. You had a different teacher every period and new teachers every year. Learning consisted of sitting in a desk, listening to the teacher talk, doing some classwork, doing some homework, taking a quiz or a test and never really questioning the process. It was called rote learning. Since schools were modeled after factories, they became big and impersonal like factories. I graduated from a high school that had 2400 students grades 10-12. Imagine, 780 students in my graduating class. Some of the graduates worked in the factories, some went into business, some went into the military and some went to college. Everyone had a chance at a middle class life.  

Switch to 2014. So much has changed since I was in school.

• We live in a mixed race country. Our population has increased by 50% and is much more diverse - many new citizens are Asian or Hispanic.

• Job intensive industries (i.e. manufacturing automobiles, making steel, manufacturing office machines) have been either automated or exported.

• We live in a global marketplace where the food we consume, clothes we wear and technology we use is often produced on the other side of the world.

• New technologies have revolutionized our lives. Just imagine everything from microwaves to smartphones to portable computers are all innovations that occurred after I left college. The down side is that technology (i.e. think robotics, ATM machines, EasyPass, Self Check Out at the Giant Eagle) has decreased the number of available jobs.

• Innovations in medical science, genetics, and nutrition have increased our life span by 10 years;

• We can get places faster and more efficiently than ever before. I own a car that gets 55 miles per gallon.

• Cable TV and the Internet provide us with immediate access to information, people and data.

• Laws and attitudes have changed regarding race, gender, and sexual equality.

• The traditional family unit has changed regarding spouses, partners, roles, parenting, responsibilities and divorce.

I would suggest our nation's factory model of education is out of alignment with our current employment and sociological context. Here are four key aspects of our society that force a rethinking of education delivery systems.  

The first is population mobility.  Since World War II, we have had the most powerful public school choice movement implemented in our history.  The growth of our highway system and financial prosperity led to the exponential growth of our suburbs. Families chose their schools based on where they bought their homes or rented their apartments.  Everyone, except the poor, choose where they go to school.  In the first 18 years of my life, my parents moved twice, each time farther out of Cleveland into the suburbs, and each time to get their children a better education. School choice has always been a consideration if you could afford to move. The suburbs are proof that many people did choose to move.  

The second is the new information economy.  Let me use Pittsburgh as an example.  I was born in 1953.  The steel mills were going strong, jobs were plentiful and most people made a living wage. The vast majority of our workers were employed in the steel, energy (coal, oil, gas) or related industries.  Engineers, chemists, laborers, miners, machinists… everyone worked.  And a high school diploma was not necessary for many entry level jobs.  Only a small percentage of students took college prep courses and continued their education after high school. Everything changed in the late 1970’s.  The mills closed, many labor intensive industries became automated and we began a technology based revolution with the advent of personal computers.  It became apparent in The Nation at Risk report in 1984, that a middle class existence could only be had by doing well in school and attending some post high school training program… or college.  We went from an economy based in manufacturing to one rooted in information.  We went from an economy based in hard physical labor to one based in hard intellectual labor. From an education perspective this first became apparent in 1989 when the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics declared, that for the first time in the history of our country, everyone was expected to take Algebra!

The third is that recent research in cognition and education have demonstrated that individuals learn in different ways.  One size does not fit all. Some learners need pictures, others need to listen to instruction, others do best by reading content and others need to get out of their seat and learn by doing. The factory model of education with 45 minute classes, listening to a teacher talk and doing some practice problems is not the way most people learn. Research suggests that today's teachers must accommodate for a variety of intelligence's, learning styles and cultural differences. The factory model limits many learners. The differentiated model empowers learners.  

The fourth is simply the effect of technology.  Whether we like it or not, for $12 you can buy a calculator that will do all the calculations you learned in math from Kindergarten thru 8th grade.  And for $90 you can get a calculator that takes you through calculus.  You can use a computer that will check your spelling and grammar.  And you can get on the Internet and find the answer to most any question, along with an easy method for copying research papers (i.e. plagiarizing.) And with a smartphone (or now a watch), you can get this access free at a coffee shop. This is not suggesting that we should not learn basic skills, it just makes the task of teaching more complex. 

Not since the Industrial Revolution, and our change from an agrarian to manufacturing economy, have we had to so radically reconsider our methods of providing public education. It is time to realize the obvious, education is the only means for achieving a living wage. Education needs to be a pump, not a filter. Unfortunately, the current education dialogue is about old news (test scores, teacher pay), pits old rivals against each other (unions and school boards), and uses old arguments (the problem is with the kids and their parents). It is time to consider a new set of questions and concerns that address the real issues at hand.

• How do we create schools that meets the needs of all students?

• When will we align our curriculum with the current job market?

• What support mechanisms need to be in place for students who live in single parent families, or with neither parent, or who are homeless, or who live in poverty?

• How long a day and how long a school year is optimum to prepare students for our new economy?

• How should a teacher teach to help all students succeed in the new economy?

• How can we incorporate technology into schools, while teaching the skills necessary to be successful in a modern world?

In order to honestly consider these questions, we must think beyond existing organizational structures such as University Schools of Education, School Boards, Teachers Unions, Textbook Companies, antiquated State Guidelines and simple minded high stakes tests.  We must consider how to create modern, flexible schools that prepare all students for opportunities in the job market and in life.  

These are both exciting and scary times.  Never in the history of the world has an education meant so much.  

Where have all the students gone?

Concern:  "Pittsburgh's school-age population has fallen by 29 percent since 2000 to 37,431."  That quote from the Post-Gazette editorial doesn't really get at the big picture regarding Pittsburgh's population changes.  It leads us to believe that the problem began in 2000.  It also leads us to believe that the Pittsburgh Public Schools currently educates over 37,000 students.  

The problem started in the 1960's for many reasons articulated below.  And to be exact... there are 37,000 students in Pittsburgh, but only 24,000 attend the Pittsburgh Public Schools.    And, as you will learn, half of the school age children in Pittsburgh take advantage of some type of school choice option.  

Let's get some background.  

	Pittsburgh	Allegheny County	Metro Area
1950	676,806	1,515,237	2,581,297
1960	604,332	1,628,587	2,768,938
1970	520,089	1,605,016	2,759,443
1980	423,959	1,450,195	2,651,991
1990	369,879	1,336,449	2,468,289
2000	334,563	1,281,666	2,431,087
2010	305,704	1,223,348	2,356,285
Population Loss 1950 to 2010	-54.83%	-24.88%	-14.90%

 This table shows the population of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County and the Metropolitan area which includes all counties contiguous to Allegheny County since 1950.  The steady decrease in Pittsburgh population can be attributed to the growth of the middle class, the growth of a highway network that made for increased mobility, the decline of the steel mills and the changing population due to mixing of races and nationalities.  Note that during this 60 year period, the city population decreased by 55% while the county decreased by 25% and the metropolitan area by 15%.  This suggests that many people associated with the population loss did not leave Western Pennsylvania, but migrated from the city to the near suburbs and then distant suburbs. 

The large majority of people who moved out of Pittsburgh’s Urban Core[1] were those individuals and families with financial means to do so.  This left an urban core that contained families with less income, resources and support and a community with a shrinking tax base. 

The logistics of this migration are somewhat more complex than one might expect.  Pennsylvania in general and the Pittsburgh region specifically, is highly localized by community.  Consider that Allegheny County, with a land mass of 745 square miles, consists of 4 cities, 4 municipalities, 82 boroughs, 40 townships and 36 additional neighborhoods designated through the US census[2].  For many years, most of these entities had their own governance (mayor and council), police departments, fire departments and school districts.  These entities also had many local differences regarding property taxes, sale of alcohol, Sunday Blue laws, garbage collection, curfews, parking and education.  Finally, social differences pertaining to religion, race, ethnicity, economic status and political beliefs were considerations when one was moving to a new community.   Thus, when the migration occurred, people had many variables to consider when choosing a community to move to. 

At the same time as this migration was occurring, there was a dramatic change in the nature of Pennsylvania school districts. During the last century, most of the cities, municipalities, boroughs and townships had their own school district.  In 1963, the Bureau of School District Reorganization in Pennsylvania reduced the 2,056 school districts with which it began to 742 by 1967, and to 501 by 1988[3]. This involved merging schools from multiple townships/boroughs/municipalities into single school districts.  As one might imagine, there was a backlash due to loss of local control.  There was also concern about mixing populations from different racial and/or social backgrounds.  A decrease from 2,056 to 501 is substantial, yet it still leaves Pennsylvania with a large number of school districts.  For example, there currently are 43 unique school districts in Allegheny County, and many more in the metropolitan area, each with its own superintendent, business manager, union, school board, curriculum and physical plant.    

During this time of migration from the city and merging of school districts, the Pittsburgh Public School district began to shrink.  Enrollment decreased from 72,000 students in the early 1960’s, to 48,000 in the early 1980’s, to 38,000 in the early 2000’s, to a current enrollment of approximately 24,000.  This is a clear indication of a flight out of the city of families with school age children. It should be noted that the implementation of a school desegregation plan in the late 1970's precipitated a large loss of population to the suburbs (i.e. white flight.)  The most obvious effect of this flight was a decrease in the number of public schools from 98 in the 1960’s to 54 in 2013. 

It should also be noted that during this time frame, approximately 20% of the student population of Pittsburgh attended private or parochial schools.  Much like the public schools, over the last 50 years, the Diocese has closed many urban schools and opened others in the suburbs.  A current example of this is the closing of North Catholic High School in Pittsburgh and opening of a new large North Catholic High School in the suburban North Hills. 

An important consequence of this flight from Pittsburgh was a new demographic context for staff, students, parents and community in the Pittsburgh schools.  The 2000 US census stated that 67% of Pittsburgh’s population were white (non-Hispanic) and 27% were African-American.  However, a 2002 National Center for Education Statistics report indicated that the Pittsburgh public school population was the opposite.  The district had 59% African-American students as compared to 39% white students.   Title I students (eligible for Free/Reduced lunch) as a percentage of the overall student population had increased steadily during this time period.   The Pittsburgh student population from a race and socio-economic perspective was changing in a manner that did not reflect the overall Pittsburgh population.  One other very important aspect of this demographic change was the increasing number of students who lived in single parent homes. 

The population shift also affected the “Mon Valley” outside of Pittsburgh.  The first ring of Pittsburgh suburbs (Wilkinsburg, Penn Hills, Braddock, Rankin, Swissvale, Pitcairn, Munhall, Turtle Creek, Wilmerding, McKeesport, Duquesne, Clairton, Mckees Rocks) held their own prior to the demise of the steel industry and desegregation.  However, loss of jobs, and the flight of families caused these first ring suburbs to mirror the city of Pittsburgh demographically.   Middle class families left these suburbs to move farther away from the urban core.  Pittsburgh families who wanted to move, but with limited resources, moved to these first ring suburbs often renting from homes that were converted from single family homes to three-unit rentals.  This change occurred during the decades of the 1960’s-80’s. Whether the flight of families was due to prosperity, racial tension or simply personal preference, it created a new and challenging educational context in the urban core.   

So let's get back to that quote "Pittsburgh's school-age population has fallen by 29 percent since 2000 to 37,431."  First, the 37,431 school-age children in Pittsburgh attend many different schools.  Approximately 24,000 attend the district schools,  7,500 attend parochial schools, 3500 attend charter schools and the remainder attend private schools.  Thus about one out of every three students chooses to attend a non-district school.  Add to that the number the district students who attend magnets and we find that approximately half the children in Pittsburgh take advantage of school choice, some paying as much as $25,000  tuition per year.  Second, one might assume that having less students would create smaller classes and increased resources for those remaining.  This in fact is the case: the Pittsburgh Public Schools is spending more money per student (inflation adjusted) than at any time in its history.  The issue of the district's finances is a topic for another post to come.

---

[1] For the purposes of this blogpost, we are defining Pittsburgh’s Urban Core as Pittsburgh proper as well as those ring suburbs that have a high density of poverty and at-risk students. 

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegheny_County,_Pennsylvania♠

[3] http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/bah/dam/rg/rg22ahr.htm

How to Begin?

I thought I would start this blog with a recent editorial published in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette.  It does a better job than I can at describing the current state of education in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and in fact, in many urban areas in the United States.

---

Rough road: Pittsburgh’s schools have tough choices to make
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - December 10, 2013 12:00 AM

Pittsburgh Public Schools superintendent Linda Lane doesn’t sugarcoat the problems confronting her district. A comprehensive, two-year planning report she released last Wednesday said that, although more city high school graduates are heading for college than five years ago, academic performance has declined in the last two years, 10 of the district’s 50 schools are running at less than 50 percent capacity and costs must be cut by nearly $50 million by 2016.

As Ms. Lane has done throughout her tenure as head of the district, she prepared a plan to attack the budget while implementing measures to improve student achievement. The report, “Whole Child, Whole Community: Building a Bridge to the Pittsburgh Promise,” includes ambitious goals for transforming the district. Under her sound approach, many of its details will be worked out during consultations with the community and the school board. The document includes a range of options, particularly dealing with finances, and there the school board will need to be particularly aggressive.

The topic that always draws the most fire is the possibility of closing schools. As had been discussed previously, Ms. Lane makes a convincing case for closing Woolslair K-5 in June because its tiny enrollment means per pupil costs are double the rate of other Pittsburgh elementary schools. That alone won’t be enough.

Pittsburgh’s school-age population has fallen by 29 percent since 2000 to 37,431, the district has too many buildings that are under-utilized and its student-teacher ratio is lower than its peers in other Pennsylvania cities. Under the report's most ambitious option, closing 10 school buildings by the fall of 2015 would save as much as $5 million.

That would move the district in the right direction, but other elements of the plan could generate even larger savings. Eliminating classes that are too small, changing the high school schedule from nine periods to eight and reducing library services could save as much as $14 million. Reducing central office personnel and spending could reduce administrative costs by $6 million.

Deferring technology purchases and reducing student athletics — intramural sports; middle school volleyball, swimming and wrestling; and high school golf, swimming and tennis — could save $2 million. Maintenance costs could be lowered by $7 million if facilities were cleaned and disinfected less often. Having most high school students travel on Port Authority buses and realigning start times for other schools to cut down on school bus trips could save another $3.5 million.

Ms. Lane and her staff have looked into every part of the operation for ways to cut costs, without losing focus on the district’s fundamental mission of preparing its students for success in both higher education and the workforce. There is a lot of work to do.  The school board and its community partners now have a road map that can move Pittsburgh Public Schools toward the fiscal stability the district needs to fulfill its goals.

---

My first impression is that these are hard times for the Pittsburgh School District.  I don't think there is an argument there.   But let's dig a little deeper and look at the key concerns described in the editorial:

1. "Pittsburgh’s school-age population has fallen by 29 percent since 2000 to 37,431"
2. "Costs must be cut by nearly $50 million by 2016"
3. "Academic performance has declined in the last two years"
4. "10 of the district’s 50 schools are running at less than 50 percent capacity"

Now let's look at how the district and the consultants recommend we address these concerns:

1. "closing 10 school buildings by the fall of 2015 would save as much as $5 million"
2. "Eliminating classes that are too small, changing the high school schedule from nine periods to eight and reducing library services could save as much as $14 million
3. "Deferring technology purchases and reducing student athletics — intramural sports" middle school volleyball, swimming and wrestling; and high school golf, swimming and tennis — could save $2 million"
4. "Maintenance costs could be lowered by $7 million if facilities were cleaned and disinfected less often"
5. "Having most high school students travel on Port Authority buses and realigning start times for other schools to cut down on school bus trips could save another $3.5 million"

This then is followed by the Post-Gazette editorial board stating that the superintendent has laid out the road map and it's time to get to work.   

Have these people lost their minds? 

Do they really believe that closing buildings, doing less cleaning and maintenance, closing libraries, offering fewer classes, reducing sports and deferring technology purchases is a solution?  I agree, it is a solution if you aspire to have a city and school district that looks like Detroit, or Newark or Philadelphia.  This "road map" is a path to destruction.  This has been the road map used for the last decade and it has led to: fewer students, closed schools, bigger deficits and lower achievement.  And of course it has everyone fighting with each other about what to do.  What is common among the most critical voices in the fight is first to assign blame, and second to somehow turn the clock back to better times.  

I would suggest that when things get this bad, it is the time to look for a new paradigm, a new approach to creating a solvent and successful public school district.  The world has changed. America has changed!  Believe it or not, even Pittsburgh has changed!  It's time to look at our educational systems and see how well aligned they are with the needs of our children and our community.  

Typical of a trip to the principal's office, it is time to honestly deconstruct the current public education problem and look for a strategy for success - a proven strategy.   My next few blog posts will provide a deeper view into the concerns listed above.  Then we can start looking at school and district alternatives that might get us out of this mess.