Pittsburgh Issue #4 - Still Walking in Circles

Still Walking in Circles

Great Public Schools - Pittsburgh (GPS-P) just published a report which is a plan for improving the Pittsburgh Public Schools.  The report was announced in the Sunday Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on  Feb. 16, 2014.   It should be noted that this report was not sanctioned by the District, nor did it formally include input from District educators.  But it does involve a large group of community members that have a vested interest in the school district's success.

Great Public Schools - Pittsburgh is a coalition of the following groups.

• Action United
• One Pittsburgh
• Pennsylvania Interfaith Impact Network (PIIN)
• PFT400
• SEIU Healthcare PA
• Yinzercation

There is little to argue with in the report:

"We believe that turning to the community schools strategy - making schools the hearts of our neighborhoods - is the most important improvement we can make in the coming years.  Community schools level the playing field and provide access to programs, services and resources that all students need to succeed in school and in life.  We believe that all students ought to have equal access to education, including homeless children, children in foster care, children in residential placements, children with disabilities, immigrant students and English language learners.

By committing ourselves to a community schools strategy, we are able to provide all Pittsburgh students what they deserve, culturally relevant curriculum; schools in which they are safe, respected and valued; highly qualified teachers who are given the resources and support they need; full arts and athletic programs; smaller class sizes; a reduction in high-stakes testing; dedication to equity, inclusion and racial justice; and so much more.  If our district - and we as a city - can make this commitment, we have the opportunity to inspire all of our children and instill in them a lifelong passion for learning."

Clearly, the organizations that make up Great Public Schools have a deeply ingrained belief that all students are capable of high achievement given the right opportunities and resources. Their new initiative focuses on two strategies to achieve its goals.

The first strategy is to engage the community in a long range planning process in order to truly implement community schools.  The second strategy, because many of the report's suggestions will increase costs, is to find more revenue for the district.

---

On the same day that the P-G announced the GPS-P report, they also ran an editorial titled: Pittsburgh must rededicate itself to closing the black/white achievement/opportunity gap: Still walking in circles.  James Stewart, the author, states:

In 2010 the primary driver for disparity-reduction efforts was a September 2006 conciliation agreement among the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, Pittsburgh Public Schools and Advocates for African-American Students, prompted by a lawsuit the advocates brought in the early 1990s. The district pledged to remedy 94 problems over a five-year period.

A volunteer Equity Advisory Panel was empaneled to monitor compliance and recommend strategies, methods and programs to address disparities. The relationship between the EAP and the PPS was often uneasy, in part because the EAP continually highlighted shortcomings in the district’s initiatives.

At the end of the agreement, minimal progress in reducing the gap had occurred. Consequently, a second agreement was reached extending the human rights commission’s oversight through the 2013-2014 school year.

It has been 20 years since the initial lawsuit regarding the District's achievement gap.   It might not surprise you to know that since the initial lawsuit, there have been 6 different Superintendents, 3 different union presidents, many different school board members and more reports, papers and strategic initiatives than you can count. Here is a listing of just the current initiatives listed on the District's website:  The Pittsburgh Promise, Empowering Effective Teachers, Equity: Getting to All, Whole Child-Whole Community and Envisioning Educational Excellence.  These initiatives sound similar to what the GPS-P report is trying to accomplish.

The author states that we are no closer to closing the achievement gap now than we were when we started this process 20 years ago.  He is correct.  Imagine, the Pittsburgh Promise offers $40,000 toward a college education if a Pittsburgh student graduates with a 2.5 GPA. Yet, a report from the Schott Foundation "The Urgency of Now" shows that in the year 2010, only 44% of Pittsburgh African American males are graduating high school, much less getting a 2.5 GPA and going to college.

Here is what has changed in 20 years since the lawsuit. The district student membership has decreased by close to 40%.  The per student cost has risen to be one of the highest for any school district in Pennsylvania.

Here is what has stayed the same: the achievement gap (race or SES) has not improved.  The graduation rate by race and SES has not improved.  And the Board and the Union continue to be adversaries rather than partners.  

---

On paper the GPS-P plan seems to make sense.  Basically they are asking for more programming, more staff, more resources and a greater focus on community.   It's hard not to agree with everything they suggest.  Unfortunately, there is a problem with their approach. It won't work.

Let's look at two slides from the Superintendent's State of the District report in Dec., 2013. The first refers to Revenues and the second refers to Class Size.

We are spending more money than any of our peer districts in Pennsylvania!  And we have the smallest class size of our peer districts in Pennsylvania!  And during the 1990's we had arts programs, physical education programs, small classes, quality special education programs, high quality teachers (only 3% currently listed as unsatisfactory) and fewer high stakes tests than we currently have.  During that time period, the achievement gap did not budge.

Do you really think more revenue will solve the problem?  Do you really think that running a community school will lower the achievement gap?   It is not surprising that a coalition of parents, educators, students, community members, local unions, faith-based leaders and social justice advocates are reaching back into their past and envisioning a school like the one they went to.  The problem is the world has changed.  Our urban youth are confronted with a life that is more difficult than one can imagine:  fractured families, constant movement from school to school, poverty, addiction, loss of quality community support groups and lack of hope.  And the employment situation is worse than one can remember.  The mills are closed and there are few places where one can make a living wage without a high school diploma and some form of post high school training.  The traditional model of school was never intended to succeed with a population of students that had so many barriers in their way. The traditional model of a school filtered students into the steel mills, the trades, the military or into college.  Frankly, our urban communities are struggling as much as our schools (Hazelwood, Homewood, Lincoln, Larimer, Spring HIll, Spring Garden, the Hill, North Side, West End, Wilkinsburg, Penn Hills, Braddock, Rankin, Swissvale, McKeesport, McKees Rocks, etc.).  The old model of education won't work.  The issue is not one of money or resources. We need a model of education that is specific to the needs of our students - one that is overwhelmingly supportive, demanding, aligned with the 21st century workplace and accountable for student achievement.

Dr. Barbara Sizemore, was a lifetime urban educator who worked in Chicago, Pittsburgh and Washington D.C.  At the end of her life, she authored a book entitled "Walking in Circles: The Black Struggle for School Reform."  Angela P. Dodson, in a review of the book states 

Ultimately and sadly, she came to believe that much of her good work and that of others to provide schools that actually taught something to poor, Black and otherwise disenfranchised students was an exercise in futility, thus the title Walking in Circles. The enemy, she states emphatically and often, is an educational hierarchy and supporting political structure devoted “to the preservation and expansion of White supremacy and its counterpart, the imputation of Black inferiority.”  That would mean that our society does little to improve the schools and to make sure each child learns because the power structure has a vested interest in maintaining its own status. It is a cynical view, but one based on her considerable experience on the front lines of urban education.

Whether you agree with Dr. Sizemore regarding race, or think that the issue is one of class, few would disagree with her notion of an "educational hierarchy and supporting political structure" that limits our ability to reform urban education.  We can't keep trying the same thing over and over and expect different results.  OUR CURRENT MODEL OF EDUCATION IS NOT WORKING, NOR WILL IT WORK.  I would have been more excited by the Greater Public Schools - Pittsburgh report if it pointed at successful districts or communities that have succeeded with their methodology. They can't.

There do exist different models of education that are working, in certain District schools, in certain local charter schools and in certain local private schools.  We should be looking at schools that work to envision the future.  What they all have in common is strong leadership, engaged and talented faculties, comprehensive support systems for both the students and adults, and high student achievement by any measure.  They all believe that providing a quality education for urban youth is a life or death struggle.

It is time to break the circle and walk toward something that works.   

Pittsburgh Issue #3 - A Case Study

There currently is a public media battle going on about the Pittsburgh Public Schools pertaining to two intertwined issues - Teacher Evaluation and Teacher Seniority.

2013 A+ Schools - Keep Great Teachers Report
1/12/14 Post-Gazette - Teacher evaluation fight may prove costly
2/17/14 Post-Gazette - Letter to the Editor - Sharene Shealey, Former School Board President
2/17/14 KDKA TV - Teachers Union Opposes $40 Mil Grant's New Evaluation System
2/17/14 WESA.fm - Black Leaders Come Out in Support of Pittsburgh's Teacher Evaluation System
2/17/14 Post-Gazette - African-American leaders come out in favor of change in Pittsburgh Public Schools teacher evaluations 

Two completely separate events came together to create this perfect storm.  The first event occurred in 2009 when the District, in partnership with the Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers (PFT), received a $40 million grant from the Gates Foundation to jointly create a quality teacher evaluation and support program. The second event occurred last year when the District had to lay off 285 teachers due to decreasing enrollment and revenue.  The question was who would get laid off.  This created a huge media fight that involved community groups, local foundations, the mayor, the teacher's union, parents and students.  Two fundamental questions surfaced.

1. Could the District and Union agree on a methodology to evaluate teacher quality and effectiveness?

2.  How should the District lay off teachers - based on seniority or on quality and effectiveness?

Let's start with Teacher Evaluation.  The practice of teacher evaluation has been the same for decades in Pennsylvania.  The Principal of the school (or Assistant Principal) is certified to observe teachers and evaluate their performance.  It is the principal's responsibility to make sure every teacher is observed at least once a year; new teachers should be observed at least twice a year.  The principal provides feedback on the observation and the teacher is given either a satisfactory or unsatisfactory rating at the end of the year. Two straight years of unsatisfactory ratings and a teacher can be dismissed from his/her job.  In practice, it is not unusual for many teachers to not have an observation during the school year.  And it is a rare occurrence for a teacher to lose their job due to unsatisfactory ratings.

This traditional method of evaluation was changed by the state a few years ago.  Beginning in the 2013-14 school year, the new Pennsylvania school regulations required Districts to evaluate teachers using classroom observation (50%) and student outcomes (50%).  In this regard, the Pittsburgh Public Schools was far ahead of the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE). Since the District had been working with the PFT on a new evaluation plan since 2009,  a plan was already in place.  And the plan was approved by PDE.  Here, from an article in the August 13, 2013 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, is an update on the new evaluation plan.

In Pittsburgh, the observation half comes via Research-based Inclusive System of Evaluation (RISE), which is aimed at improving both the way principals observe teachers and providing opportunities for professional growth.  Other pieces are the district's own valued-added measurements aimed at showing how much learning a student has gained in a year based on tests, student surveys and building-level data.

While the new system takes effect in 2013-14, the district recently told teachers what their ratings would have been under the new system if it had been in effect in 2012-13 and provided specific ways for them to get help where they need it.
Overall, the district found that 85% of classroom teachers were performing proficient or above -- including 15.3% who were distinguished -- 5.3% in the "needs improvement" category and 9.3% failing.  Under the 2012-13 system, 3% were rated unsatisfactory, the rest satisfactory.

The state has given Pittsburgh permission to operate its system differently than other districts in the state.  Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers officials contend the district's standards appear to be tougher than those that will be faced in other districts.

So here's what happened.  Starting in 2009 the District and the Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers worked together to develop a teacher evaluation system that measured teacher quality and effectiveness.  Unfortunately, in July, 2012, the District decided it would have to lay off over 285 teachers due to lower enrollment.  Since the District and the PFT had been working on a teacher evaluation plan for over two years, a broad range of community organizations petitioned the Board of Directors to not layoff based on seniority, but to layoff based on teacher effectiveness as measured by the new evaluation plan.  However, when the issue of layoffs came up, the PFT defaulted to its contract with the District and stated that seniority was the method to be used in layoffs.  Also, as noted in the article, the PFT began to backtrack on the evaluation criteria when they found out that using the new system, three times as many teachers (9.3%) were failing as compared with the previous system (3%).

The concept of Teacher Seniority was an outgrowth of a time, pre-1970s, when layoffs were decided by a single individual in a school district, not necessarily on the basis of quality of teaching, but often based on favoritism, nepotism, sexism, racism, cutting higher paying staff or other arbitrary criteria. In these instances there was no recourse for teachers who were laid off for inappropriate reasons.  A key element of the first collective bargaining agreements was the concept of seniority as a non-judgmental, fair method for laying off staff.  Both building seniority and system seniority was used to determine who could transfer to a new position, who could teach summer school and what classes you taught during the school year. Seniority is the preferred Union method for creating fairness.  Consequently, teacher quality doesn't enter into a discussion of seniority.

Since the PFT and the Board had worked closely on the new evaluation system, one might suggest that the issue of arbitrary layoffs due to the whim of the head of HR would not come into play.  Although the PFT agreed to develop a plan for the evaluation of quality in teaching, they demanded that seniority, not quality should be the basis for the layoffs (as stated in their contract.)  As an old union member I understand their distrust.  Would the district attempt to get rid of higher salaried teachers under the guise of layoffs based on teacher effectiveness?  In the past, I could imagine that happening.  However they had $40 million dollars and 4 years to figure this problem out.  The Gates Foundation was watching.  The Pittsburgh community was watching.  The District thought they had a new evaluation plan that the PFT helped develop.  The Union stated that the plan was more rigorous than other Districts and it set the bar too high. And they never discussed any connection between the evaluation plan and seniority.  The District was naive.  The Union was cynical.  It begs the question of whether either or both sides were disingenuous when they agreed to work on a new evaluation plan.

Here's a suggestion.  If the District and the Union were moving towards a more cooperative relationship, or actually saw themselves as partners in an endeavor to create higher achievement for all students, they would look for a middle ground.  Using the District/Union evaluation methodology just developed, 15% of the teachers were ranked as failing or in need of improvement.  If the District has to layoff teachers due to restructuring, they should start by laying off those teachers who are not proficient (the 15%).  Once that group of teachers is furloughed, seniority could be used for the rest of the layoffs.  Compromise, a new paradigm, a focus on the students!  The problem is that without being negotiated, and codified in the District/Union contract, there would have been an insurrection in the union membership.    

In this day and age, with much greater attention and legal recourse regarding workplace discrimination, seniority has outlived its value.  To be quite honest, when I was teaching and a member of the Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers, most of us would have been thrilled if the incompetent teachers were removed.  They reflected poorly on the profession and did great damage in the classroom.  Ultimately, every decision made should be focused on the best option for our students.  As long as there is an adversarial relationship between the Union and the District there will be no progress.

Pittsburgh Issue #2 - School Choice? or Charter Schools? or Privatization?

Traditional public education advocates, concerned over the current state of our school systems, use the words "School Choice", "Charter Schools" and "Privatization" synonymously.  Tying them together leads one to believe that public schools are being taken over by private companies.  That is quite a leap.  A study of the school choice movement in the Pittsburgh area makes three points absolutely clear.  First, school choice is availed by more than half of the families in Pittsburgh and Allegheny County.  Second, charter schools can offer students, who attend low achieving feeder schools, with a quality public school alternative.  Third, privatization of public schools is currently not an issue in the Pittsburgh area.  Let's try to clear this up with some definitions and examples of each type in Pittsburgh.  

School Choice is when a family chooses to send their child to a school other than the local feeder school where they currently live.  Examples of public school choice would be to:

• move to a different neighborhood to enroll in a specific public school;
• send your child to a public magnet school (e.g. Pittsburgh Sci-Tech High); 
• send your child to a public non-profit charter school (e.g. Propel Schools); 
• send your child to a publically funded for-profit charter school (Edison Schools).  

Examples of private school choice would be to:

• pay for your child to attend a private non-profit parochial school (e.g. Central Catholic High School);
• pay for your child to attend a private non-profit independent school (e.g. Shadyside Academy).  

Thus, "School Choice" can be either a public school and private school decision.  

One school choice option is a Charter School.  Charter Schools are independent public schools funded through tuition payments from the school districts of their students.  Charters receive the same subsidies district schools get from the state and federal governments for programs such as Title I, Special Education and Free/Reduced lunch. Thus they are funded through tax dollars.  Charters are obligated to follow the rules and regulations of public schools as stated by the state and federal government. They take the same state mandated tests and are held accountable to the state standards.  But because they have their own board of directors and are separate from the local public school district, they are freer to innovate and experiment with new school models.  They must select their students through a lottery and are not allowed to get rid of students (as private schools can do.)  Every five years they are reviewed and, if they are not doing a good job, their charters can be revoked. 

 "Privatization, or "contracting out," is part of a broad campaign that seeks to transfer many parts of our community life, including the delivery of education services, into the hands of private, for-profit corporations" (as stated by The National Education Association, America's largest teachers' union.)   Edison Schools are an example of a charter school organization that is for profit.  Thus some percentage of the school's funding is taken as profit by the company. Private charters represent about 12% of the total charters in the U.S., but have no current presence in the Pittsburgh area.  

So let's take a look at whether Pittsburgh and Allegheny County families avail themselves of school choice, charters or some type of privatization option.

There are approximately 190,000 K12 students in Allegheny County.

• There are 43 public school districts in Allegheny County.
• 120,000 (63%) students attend public schools in the county outside of Pittsburgh.
• 25,000 (13%) students attend the Pittsburgh Public Schools.
• 6000 (3%) students attend public charter schools in Allegheny County. 
• 39,000 (21%) students pay tuition to attend private/parochial schools in Allegheny County.

The population analysis is striking when it is reviewed using the filter of poverty as measured by eligibility for the Federal Free/Reduced lunch program  (PDE, Division of Food and Nutrition, Building Data Report, Oct. 2012).  57,000 public school students (30% of the total) in Allegheny County live in poverty as defined by their eligibility for the lunch program. Of those students in poverty, 33,000 attend schools that have more than 60% poverty.  These students are concentrated in the poorest neighborhoods.  Not surprisingly, these are the lowest achieving schools in the county.  

So who attends Charter Schools?  Pittsburgh charter school poverty statistics (Free/Reduced Lunch) demonstrate vividly which students choose charter schools. 

Charter Schools in Pittsburgh Area	Poverty
CITY CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL	66%
ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL	86%
MANCHESTER ACADEMIC CS	83%
NORTHSIDE URBAN PATHWAYS CS	86%
CAREER CONNECTIONS CHARTER HS	83%
PROPEL ANDREW STREET HS	83%
PROPEL BRADDOCK HILLS ES	79%
PROPEL BRADDOCK HILLS HS	69%
PROPEL CS - PITCAIRN	57%
PROPEL EAST	67%
PROPEL HOMESTEAD	91%
PROPEL MCKEESPORT	87%
PROPEL MONTOUR	70%
PROPEL NORTHSIDE	82%
URBAN LEAGUE ES	86%

On average the poverty rate at Pittsburgh area charter schools is 78%.  

Are you beginning to get the idea about "School Choice" in Pittsburgh?  The suburbanites made their choice, they left the city, moved as far out as their income would take them and paid for their education through their property taxes or for tuition to private or parochial schools.  The charter school and magnet school "choice" is really a class-based urban education issue.  And privatization is a non-issue in Pittsburgh. 

So let's get back to the original premise... Is Choice the Problem?  It is a hypocritical notion that educators do not believe in school choice.  Americans believe deeply in choice in all sectors.  Most Americans with families make decisions about schools for their children based on finding the best schools they can afford.  Educators, like most middle class Americans, choose to move near schools that have lots of resources and high achievement.  Within the city, middle/upper class Pittsburghers move to wealthier neighborhoods (Squirrel Hill, Shadyside) or take advantage of PPS magnet schools (CAPA, IB program at Obama HS, Engineering at Allderdice HS, Sci-Tech HS.)  In the county, middle/upper class Pittsburghers, with the financial resources, choose a school district outside of Pittsburgh by buying or renting in a wealthy community (Mt. Lebanon, Upper St. Clair, Peters Township, North Allegheny).  Lower income families don't have the option to move.  Their choices are limited.  

Are Charters the problem?  In the City of Pittsburgh limits, approximately 50% of the students use school choice to either attend a magnet school, a charter school or pay tuition to a private school.  The remaining students have limited or no choice.  69% of Pittsburgh Public School students live in poverty as defined by the federal free/reduced lunch standards.  They do not have the resources to "choose" a school by paying tuition or moving to a wealthier community. Charter Schools provide a public school option that empowers poor families to have a choice. It is currently the most progressive method of providing a choice option for poor families in the urban core.  Without this choice they have no other option than to attend their local school, no matter its quality.  The charter schools that Pittsburgh has authorized are all non-profit, 501(c)(3) organizations.  City Charter High School, Manchester Academic Charter, Urban Pathways, Propel Schools, the Urban League Charter, the Environmental Charter School are quite successful from both a student achievement and parental perspective.  They all have large waiting lists.  What is sad, is that the Pittsburgh Public Schools used a similar choice methodology with good results when they created the Magnet Schools as a strategy to integrate the districts in the early 1980's.  Why the District did not continue that successful strategy is beyond me.

Is Privatization the problem?  It may become a problem at some point, but it is not currently a Pittsburgh problem.  I happen to agree with public school advocates and the unions about privatization.  I have no interest in for-profit companies running our schools.  Their number one priority is return on investment, not the education of our children.  And their student achievement results are not better than non-profit charters.  So I understand why they would speak out on the topic.  

Bottom line... Charter schools take dollars away from the chartering district.  Thus "public school advocates and teacher unions" choose to side with the traditional delivery model (an education monopoly by neighborhood) rather than with the students who want to choose a better education. To attack charter schools is an attempt to deny choice to poor, less fortunate citizens in order to maintain the status quo in our existing institutions. 

Pittsburgh Issue #1 - We're running out of money.

Many critics of our current public education predicament place blame on state funding cuts. On the surface they appear to have a valid point.  The Pittsburgh Public Schools (PPS), like most school districts in America, is running out of money. 


"While the city has lost nearly a third of its school-age population since 2000 and the school district faces bankruptcy in 2016 unless it changes course, Pittsburgh Public Schools Superintendent Linda Lane believes doom-and-gloom isn't a great motivator."(Post-Gazette, Dec. 4, 2013)

As correctly pointed out on a recent education related blog post the state has cut education funding:
"Next week is going to be a sad one for Pittsburgh Public School students. Facing over $30 million in cuts from the state, and struggling to get its own per-pupil costs down, Pennsylvania’s second largest school district is laying off 285 teachers and other educators. (That’s one out of every eight teachers.) Next Wednesday will be their last day in the classroom with students. (http://yinzercation.wordpress.com/2012/06/06/no-more-teachers-no-more-books/)."

Having worked for the Pittsburgh Public Schools for 25 years, and having been a CEO/Principal of a charter school in Pittsburgh for 10 years, I've always been interested in the district's finances.  So, after 35 years in the game, I decided to read the 2013 budget at a deeper level and see exactly how much revenue they had, what their expenditures were per student, and learn how dire their situation was.  

To put it simply, here is what I found.  The Pittsburgh Public Schools is spending more per student than most any district in America or any country in the world.  So why are they running out of money.  Let's break it down.  

First, it is important to understand that a urban public school district like Pittsburgh has two budgets.  The first is the General Fund Budget, that consists of revenue from local and state taxes.  Here is the 2013 PPS General Fund Budget Revenue:

Of the total $521 million budget, approximately 52% comes from local taxes, 45% comes from state funds, 1% from local sources (often contributions) and 2% is being taken from the district's fund balance (savings).  Once the fund balance is depleted, the district has no savings whatsoever.  Most public discussion of the district's budget refers to the General Fund. 

However, the district (like all districts in America) has a second budget called Supplemental Funds.  This budget includes federal revenue earmarked for specific purposes.  Common uses include subsidies for Free/Reduced Lunches, Special Education and Title I.  This represents the federal contribution to the education of students with special needs and students living in poverty. The supplemental funds usually are used for additional teachers, classroom aides, reading specialists and special education teachers and support staff.  As one might guess, urban districts tend to get more money in their supplemental budget then smaller middle income districts that have fewer students in poverty.  The supplemental budget also contains any grants from foundations.  For example, Pittsburgh is currently in the midst of a $40 million Gates Foundation grant. The one important aspect of Supplemental Funds is that they are earmarked for a specific use and can't be transferred to other areas.  Here is the 2013 PPS Supplemental Fund Revenue:

Added together, the total 2013 Pittsburgh Public Schools budget is $715,274,651.   So the question is whether this is adequate funding to meet the education goals of the school district? One of the first complaints about trying to manage a district's budget is the cost of charter schools.  So let's deduct that amount.

PPS Budget:                            $ 715,274,651 
PPS Charter School Outlay: $   52,700,000 (for 3,414 students)
Net PPS Budget:                    $ 662,574,651 (for 24,849 students)

It is important to make a note here about district budgets and how they are reported.  Many superintendents will back out monies spent on buildings, capital improvements, debt service and transportation from the per student cost provided to the public.  I am including these costs for two reasons.  The first is that this is part of the cost of doing business.  Superintendents are trying to isolate education costs.  I think it is only fair to the taxpayers that they understand the total cost of running a school district.  Buildings, buses and debt service are part of those costs. Second, as a charter school CEO, I would always include these costs.  17% of my budget went to pay the rent and upkeep of our building.  That is a key cost of doing business. Thus the per student costs that follow may be higher than what the district quotes, but they are an accurate measure of what is spent per student.  One final note.  A large amount of money that Pittsburgh receives pays for additional services for special education students.  Thus special education students have a much higher per student cost than regular education students.  For the sake of this comparison, I have aggregated all students together and come up with a single per student cost.  

A quick bit of division leads to an interesting comparison.  The Pittsburgh Public Schools spends $26,664 per student it educates.  Pittsburgh charter schools receive $15,436 per student they educate.  

To give you a broader perspective on per pupil costs here is a quote from the National Center on Education Statistics (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cmd.asp):

"In 2009, the United States spent $11,831 per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student on elementary and secondary education, an amount 38 percent higher than the OECD average of $8,595." 

The OECD average represents the average spent per student of 34 wealthy countries in the world including the United States.  These expenditures include all charges for current outlays plus capital outlays and interest on school debt.  

WHAT IS GOING ON? 

Can this really be true?  Is Pittsburgh spending three times the per student cost of the 34 wealthiest countries in the World?  It is true.  I would suggest that what is going on is the perfect storm. 


First, district enrollment is way down. As stated in a previous blog post "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 25,000."  One would assume that as enrollment goes down costs would go down at the same rate.  This is a fallacy.  As students leave, it is hard to decrease costs proportionately due to the large infrastructure (physical plant,  utilities, equipment, capital expenses, pensions and most importantly staff) that is in place.  In addition to the economics of downsizing, one must consider the difficult politics of downsizing.  There is a substantial community backlash occurring in Pittsburgh about school closings - community groups are created, demonstrations occur, picketing at board meetings, appeals to the Governor, online blogs, etc.  Here is a case in point.

Woolslair Elementary School, which this fall has 110 students, at capacity had over 300 students.  If the district closes Woolslair, and puts the students in existing classes at other schools, in theory they should be able to save $26,000 per student which would decrease the budget by $2,860,000.  They should be able to save that money because the students will be assimilated into existing schools, with existing faculty, furniture, books, etc.  As reported in the November 5, 2013  Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

 "Dr. Lane noted that, because of its small size, Woolslair costs nearly twice as much per student as some city schools. If the school is closed, district officials estimate $650,000 to $950,000 a year will be saved."  

The discrepancy between $2,860,000 and $950,000 per year is the problem with downsizing. When you close a school, you will recover certain costs associated with teachers, staff, utilities and school upkeep.  But legacy costs and fixed costs for the District (i.e. capital costs, interest on debt, central office staff, transportation, lunch programs, athletic programs) do not change. Woolslair parents, teachers and community members are fighting to keep their school open, even with only 110 students in the school.  And in fact, due to pressure from a variety of community groups, the school has been given a reprieve and will remain open for another year. 

Second, salary, health care, and pension costs are high and continue to increase.  Shrinking enrollment leads to school closings and layoffs.  Since teachers are not at-will employees, layoffs occur in a last hired, first fired sequence.  Thus, remaining staff are more senior, making the average salary per teacher increase.  Basically, a senior teacher earns about the same amount as two first year teachers combined.  In addition, with Pittsburgh schools pioneering collective bargaining in in the late 1960's, the Pittsburgh region's salaries are some of the highest in the nation.  I do not believe the salaries are too high in terms of what we should pay the professionals who educate our children. However, it is hard to manage these costs in an economy that is not growing.  In addition, health care costs and pension contributions have gone up.  

Third, the demographic of the district has changed.  As families left Pittsburgh, remaining students often are poorer and more needy.  The cost of educating poor and disabled students is higher if you are going to try and address their unique needs... and, to it's credit, PPS tries to do this.  

I would suggest that we have plenty of money to educate the children of Pittsburgh. Unfortunately, the entity that is tasked with this education, the Pittsburgh Public Schools is not a startup company; it is not facile nor quick on its feet.  It is a legacy business that is heavily regulated by the federal, state and local governments, with numerous legacy systems that are hard to realign with a new and changing economy.  It can't fix itself using the tried and true methodologies.  Numerous local education advocacy groups and the labor unions are advocating for those old methodologies (i.e. We need more money.)  The district has enough money; what the district needs is a new delivery model.  There are new models that exist and have been proven successful.  But it necessitates a different paradigm, a new attitude, a new methodology.  Change is not something that comes easy in Pittsburgh, PA. 

J&L Steel works, Hazelwood, PA

Gladstone Middle School, Hazelwood, PA

Everything about Pittsburgh has changed since I began as a teacher in 1975.  The only thing that hasn't are its public institutions.  Frankly, if you want to see where this ends up, take a road trip to Detroit, Philadelphia, Newark, Milwaukee, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Cleveland or most any rust belt city.  The steel mills are gone.  The new Pittsburgh has found a way to prosper in the modern post-1980's economy.  Eds, Meds, Technology and Finance (i.e. Universities, Hospitals, Google and Banking) are stimulating the local economy.  Educated young adults are starting to come to Pittsburgh, but move to the suburbs once they have children.  This is because our current city public schools are a monument to times past.