A Metaphor for Change: Moving from a Filter to a Pump...

High School as Filter

Public education started in earnest in our country at the beginning of the 20th century.  Most adolescents in the early 1900's were not in school but were working - either on farms or in factories, as laborers or in the trades.  Once the Industrial Revolution took hold, and with a growing immigrant population, our country exploded in a world of mass production.  As time went on more students began to attend high school taking a vocational track meant to lead to a job upon graduation.  Thus high schools focused on basic literacy and training for the world of work.  Only a select few took an academic track and went to college.  Academic high schools (e.g. Central High School in Philadelphia) that focused on college preparation were separate from mainstream high schools.  Here are a few assumptions that the traditional high school (that many of us attended) were built on.

1. Only a small percentage of students should go to college.  These students took college prep classes and went into professions such as engineering, law, education, medicine and architecture.  
2. Most working class jobs in the trades, manufacturing and business only required a high school diploma.  People who entered these jobs received on-the-job training.
3. Big companies based in mass production such as steel mills or automobile plants provided huge numbers of jobs for individuals entering the labor market.  
4. The ability to do repetitive tasks at a high level of quality (mass production) was the goal.  
5. Being on time, on task and dutiful was more important than being able to collaborate, problem solve or work on group projects. 
6. Most jobs involved working with your hands.  
7. For most of the century, the majority of jobs were held by men.  
8. Jobs involved producing things.  
9. Once you had a job, you could more than likely keep it for life, moving up the ladder in the company.  
10. Many non-academic males who could not make it through high school went to the military which provided structure, order and high school equivalency opportunities.   

Based on these assumptions, schools looked and acted like factories.  And they did a great job of filtering the population into college, homemaking, trades, vocations, military, retail, etc.  

This graph shows the small number of high school students in the United States in the early part of the century.  It also shows a significant growth in the high school population after World War II.  There are three reasons given for this increase - population growth, the change in the needs of our job market and making high school mandatory for all students.  Mandatory attendance in a high school was a pragmatic attempt to create more job opportunities for returning veterans.  

Note that high school graduation in the United States did not go over 50% until the 1960's.  Imagine that for the first half of the 20th century, students did not necessarily need a high school diploma to make a living wage!   

One can see that the percentage of students graduating from high school tripled from 20% to 60% in about 40 years.  An early impetus to push for universal high school education occurred in 1957 with the Soviet flight of Sputnik.  The threat of Soviet superiority provided the United States with a clear signal that they needed to compete globally from an education perspective.  However, It took until 1983 for our country to recognize that universal education and high school completion was a requirement to make a living wage.  In 1983, The Nation at Risk Report, stated 

"History is not kind to idlers. The time is long past when American's destiny was assured  simply by an abundance of natural resources and inexhaustible human enthusiasm, and by our relative isolation from the malignant problems of older civilizations. The world is indeed one global village. We live among determined, well-educated, and strongly motivated competitors. We compete with them for international standing and markets, not only with products but also with the ideas of our laboratories and neighborhood workshops. America's position in the world may once have been reasonably secure with only a few exceptionally well-trained men and women. It is no longer. "

Toward this end, in 1989 the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) declared that everyone should take Algebra.  For the first time in our nation's history, the expectation was that every student receive an academic education.  As one might imagine, this was easier said than done.

Since The Nation at Risk report, the number of students graduating high school that were prepared for college increased from 2% to 29%.  Although this was a substantial increase over 16 years, it meant that as we entered the 21st century,  less than 1/3 of our student population was ready for college.  Clearly, the new information/technology-based economy changed our world so fast that entrenched educational institutions were incapable of keeping up.  

I would suggest that our nation's high schools did not know where to begin to meet the new workforce needs addressed in The Nation At Risk Report (1983), the NCTM Standards (1989) and the SCANS Report (1991).  Remember, in America, school districts are locally managed. There is no centralized way to move to a new model of education aligned with the job market.  So as you would guess, little changed.  It is 2014 and our schools are still acting as a FILTER at a time when we need everyone to obtain academic skills.

High School as a PUMP

If all students need to succeed in high school and move on to post high school training programs, we need a PUMP, not a FILTER.  We need a school system that takes ALL students, provides them with the academic, social, problem solving, technological and communication skills to work in a dynamic new economy.  "Today, the demands on business and workers are different.  Firms must meet world-class standards and so must workers. Employers seek adaptability and the ability to learn and work in teams" (A SCANS Report for America 2000).  The SCANS report  recommended the foundation and competencies all students must have to compete in the new economy.

THE FOUNDATION - competence requires:

Basic Skills - reading, writing, arithmetic and mathematics, speaking, and listening;
Thinking Skills - thinking creatively, making decisions, solving problems, seeing things in the mind's eye, knowing how to learn, and reasoning;
Personal Qualities - individual responsibility, self-esteem, sociability, self-management, and integrity.

COMPETENCIES - effective workers can productively use:

Resources - allocating time, money, materials, space, and staff;
Interpersonal Skills - working on teams, teaching others, serving customers, leading, negotiating, and working well with people from culturally diverse backgrounds;
Information - acquiring and evaluating data, organizing and maintaining files, interpreting and communicating, and using computers to process information;
Systems - understanding social, organizational, and technological systems, monitoring and correcting performance, and designing or improving systems;
Technology - selecting equipment and tools, applying technology to specific tasks, and maintaining and troubleshooting technologies.

So our country is in education limbo.  We have a system that is currently struggling to graduate students with the skills necessary for a 21st century economy.  Unfortunately, it is filtering students out of "the American Dream".  Add to that the problems that exist in the urban core and you now understand the mess we are in.

The federal government attempted to change the education model with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB).  However, the NCLB concept of high stakes testing in English and Mathematics has shown little or no effect on implementing a model of education aligned with the new economy. In fact, the focus on these tests has skewed education programming away from the competencies suggested in the SCANS report.

Recent reports from the American College Testing service (post NCLB) suggest that over the last five years, there has been little or no growth in the number of students who are college-ready upon graduation.

We are in a crisis.  As an educator in the year 2000, I was in a crisis.

Let me tell you a personal anecdote that typified the struggle that was going on at the time. In 2000 I was working in the Pittsburgh Public Schools as the Coordinator of Instructional Technology.  We were having a very hard time getting the District to move toward a high school model that was aligned with the new economy.  We implemented a pilot Microsoft Certification program in a local high school in an attempt to provide industry certification for the students.  This particular school was struggling and had a large student population that lived in poverty.  In the first year of the program, we found that many of the most challenged students gravitated to this program.  In a short 7 month period, one business education teacher had his students earn over 175 Microsoft Office certifications.  And these certifications were earned by the most challenging and needy students.

In an attempt to expand the pilot both internally in the school and to other schools in Pittsburgh, we made a proposal to the principal and the district Director of Vocational Education.  We would supply computers, training and support for this program at no cost to the district through a state Link to Learn grant.  We told the principal and director that they could take all the credit for the program.  It would be run out of their departments.  We were turned down.

"Some of our teachers are too old to learn this new technology... we need to wait till they retire."

"It is not your job to tell the Voc Ed department how we should run our program."

Can you imagine?  A successful program that empowered at-risk high school students and provided them with industry standard certifications.  Yet issues of change, power and turf all took precedence to the needs of the children.   My colleague and I were astonished.  After 25 years in public education, we realized that the system, the bureaucracy was broken; it had lost its ability to evolve, to meet the needs of its students, to align itself with a new world.

We decided to design a high school for the 21st century and approached a local foundation. Believe it or not, they agreed to provide a grant for a planning year and the start up of the school.  During the planning year we approached the Superintendent, Asst. Superintendent, a local high school and the union to partner on the project.  They all turned us away.  Who did we think we were trying to develop a new model for high schools?  Clearly, we had stepped out of line.  At any other time or place, we would have been stymied.  But in 1997 Pennsylvania adopted a charter school law that was created to allow for new models of public education.

In 2002, we co-founded a model charter high school in Pittsburgh PA.  City Charter High School was designed from the ground up to act as a pump for ALL students. The SCANS report drove the mission of the school.  The school works with over 600 students from the urban core - 65% live in poverty, 14% have special needs, 75% from single parent families, 59% students of color, 6% homeless.  Over 95% of the students graduate, 85% go to college, all have at least 4 Microsoft certifications, all complete a 130 hour internship at a local company and the success rate for those students who attend college is over 20% higher than the national average.

After 25 years as a math teacher, supervisor and coordinator, it was a sad day in my life when I left the Pittsburgh School District in order to develop a conceptually new high school.  I tell this anecdote for two reasons.  The first is to demonstrate the quagmire our current educational institutions are in. The second to suggest that there exist successful models for quality schools both in Pittsburgh and the United States.

We know how quality 21st century high schools look.  We understand the pedagogy, the curriculum, the structure, the culture necessary to prepare our students for the new economy.  My next few blog posts will present this new model of education.  These new ideas are based on 12 years of proof of concept at both City High and quality high schools around the nation.  

The problem is not what should we do... the problem is how do we get school districts to do it.  How do we change the culture?  How do we get schools to act as a pump for all students?

* The background for this post and for the development of City Charter High School, is based on the SCANS report.  WHAT WORK REQUIRES OF SCHOOLS: A SCANS REPORT FOR AMERICA 2000, THE SECRETARY'S COMMISSION ON ACHIEVING NECESSARY SKILLS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, JUNE 1991

"Teachers Union" is a Conundrum

In this politically charged environment, one can't even say the words "teachers union" without getting everyone crazy.  So let's get something straight before you read on.  To the left, I am not in favor of "breaking the teachers unions" or "privatizing education."  To the right, I am not in favor of the traditional adversarial approach between District and Union that has produced below average student achievement.  I am suggesting that it is time for the union and the administration to develop a new paradigm; one that is a working relationship commonly referred to as a "team".  Sorry for the sarcasm, but really.  How can we possibly eliminate the racial achievement gap, improve our science and mathematics achievement and educate all students if we are not all pushing toward the same goal - providing students with the skills to have a quality life.    

Background

Teacher Unions/Associations began over 150 years ago.  It is of value to take a look at their history. The National Education Association (NEA), founded in 1857 was the country's first teacher collective.   The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) was founded in 1916 as a union affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, eventually the AFL-CIO.  The NEA was formed out of a desire for teachers to "associate" in a professional organization.  The following quotes were taken from this reference on the Internet:  Teacher Unions - OVERVIEW, INFLUENCE ON INSTRUCTION AND OTHER EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES.

"In 1960 the NEA assembly had rejected a resolution endorsing representative negotiations. Although this position was reversed the next year, for much of the 1960s the NEA stressed that it was an association and referred to professional negotiations, rather than collective bargaining, because of the resistance of many of its own members to identification as a union."

The AFT was formed out of a desire to unionize teachers and represent their interests to School Districts.

"The AFT embraced collective bargaining earlier and more enthusiastically than the NEA, but changing circumstances and the competition between the two organizations resulted in victories and growth for both, including legislative and political victories that saw collective bargaining laws adopted in more than half of the states by the early 1970s."

In 1998, the NEA and AFT proposed a merger.  

"Despite individual strengths, emerging challenges have led to strong efforts by both organizations to merge. The AFT was prepared to accept a merger in 1998 but, at its annual convention that year, the NEA's delegates defeated a proposal by nearly a three to two margin."  

The conundrum is exemplified by the problems that the NEA and AFT have had in determining:  Are we Professional Educators or School Workers?

One Person's Experience

My parents were not college educated, nor could they financially contribute to my college education.  I paid for my college education by working as a truck driver in the Teamster's Union in Cleveland, Ohio.  In 1970, my pay ($4.20/hr) was three times minimum wage ($1.40); I made time and a half overtime ($6.30) and double time ($8.40) on Sunday.  It was a great job, and it completely paid for my tuition, room and board at Carnegie Mellon University.  Can you imagine?!!  I paid for an education at a private university based on the money I made during the summers and vacations at the age of 18 to 21.  It is because I worked for a strong labor union that I was able to pay for my education.  I graduated from CMU with a bachelors degree in mathematics and Pennsylvania teaching certification in secondary mathematics.

Upon being hired as a mathematics teacher in 1975, I immediately joined the Upper St. Clair Teachers Association (NEA affiliated.)  I stayed two years at that job and then went back to graduate school to obtain my masters degree in education.  I then was hired in 1979 by the Pittsburgh Public Schools and immediately joined the Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers (AFT affiliated.) I was happy to be in the union, it provided support, protection and after two strikes (before I started teaching), a reasonable salary. 

On my second job in Pittsburgh, I made friends with older teachers who were in the union during the strikes. We all believed in the union struggle to organize the teachers and make our profession more respectable by having a seat at the table with district administration. Often the relationship between the union and district was adversarial.  Clearly, without the union, teachers would never have gotten competitive salaries, quality benefits and reasonable working conditions.  I am grateful to the efforts of the unions, particularly to Albert Fondy and the Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers.  

After teaching for a number of years, I began to argue with my friends about some aspects of the union contract (seniority, tenure and a tight definition of our work day) that I felt were counter productive; elements that were hard to defend with respect to the needs of my students.  My buddies said "you weren't around when we didn't have a union, the administration did whatever they want, we are not going backwards." I understood where they were coming from, but what about the students?   I also began to question the attitudes of the administration, specifically my principal, mathematics supervisor and the central office staff. They would create policies or make decisions that seemed to be in denial of the reality of my classroom.  I believed that something was fundamentally wrong with the culture of schools with regard to the relationship between faculty and administration.   

"Am I a professional educator or a school worker?"

"Am I a leader/thinker/problem solver or am I a school worker?"  

"Who knows better about what works in my classroom: quality professional educators or central office bureaucrats?"  

I was getting frustrated that both central office and the union had made decisions that directly affected what I could and couldn't do as a teacher.  And I felt in the end, it was the students who suffered.  As usual, I started to run my mouth and question the assumptions. 

Who chose this terrible math book?  It is dumbed down, has simple minded problem sets and will never challenge my students. 

Why are these halls so crowded?  We need to get students to class on time. What about a dress code (for students and teachers?)

Why is the choice of who teaches a particular course based on seniority?  

Was the best use of my 45 minute duty period to yell at students in the cafeteria to clean up after themselves?   Why can't I spend that time tutoring students who need additional help?  

Why does that incompetent teacher continue to have a job?

Why does that incompetent principal continue to have a job?

No one really evaluates me or gives me feedback.  How should teachers be evaluated?  Should merit matter with regard to compensation?  Why am I paid the same as inferior, lazy teachers?  

Does central administration really know the needs, desires and background of my students?   Do they understand education from the viewpoint of the students and the teachers?

If I am held accountable for the mathematics education of my students, why don't I have some say in the many different aspects of curriculum, instruction and assessment in my classroom?  

It became clear the administration, the union and my colleagues considered us to be school workers.  We were not in charge; we were told what to do.  It was hard to have ownership in that type of environment.  In a sad sort of way, it is easier not to have ownership.  We could blame the bosses for what was going on. Thus we defined ourselves as workers.  The current union contract is 173 pages long.  You should read it to see whether you think we are professional educators or school workers.  

This is the conundrum. And here are my personal answers.   

Am I a professional educator or a school worker?  I am a professional educator.

Is the administration my enemy or are we a team?  The administration and staff must work as a team.

Can this adversarial model of education possibly help the students?  The current adversarial model of education cannot possibly help students and if continued, will be the downfall of public education.   

My answers to these questions represent my beliefs that we have to find a new paradigm for public education that is based on quality educators, quality administrators and a focus on the one and only goal - student success.  

What to do about Wilkinsburg - Part 2?

Violence in School, Low Expectations, No Opportunity, No Incentives...  Imagine students protesting at a school because they want to learn, they want to succeed.  And no one from administration will talk to them.  Listen to what they are asking for.  They just want a chance. There are options to give them a chance.  But it means a radical change to our educational program.

There are many schools across the country - public, public charter, private, parochial - that succeed in poverty stricken, down and out neighborhoods.  You can visit the Schools That Can website and find over 100 schools in America that achieve great things in towns like Wilkinsburg, with poor, needy youth. In Pittsburgh, exemplary schools that successfully work with very needy populations include Propel Schools in McKeesport, Turtle Creek, Homestead, Montour, The Neighborhood Academy, Pittsburgh Urban Christian School, City Charter High School, Manchester Academic Charter School, the Urban League Charter School and a few Pittsburgh Public Schools like Fulton or Dilworth or Westwood.

So what do I suggest we do?

"Troubled finances have led the state Department of Education to put the Wilkinsburg and Aliquippa school districts on a financial watch list.

Being on the list enables the department to offer school districts technical assistance to correct their financial problems, said Tim Eller, spokesman for the state agency.  The districts don't have to accept the help, Eller said.

The system is set up to prevent districts from being placed in financial recovery, which can force them into receivership if they don't make progress with state-appointed chief recovery officers after up to a year he said." (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/3668792-74/financial-state-district).  

First, see if you have five votes on the School Board who are willing to consider a completely different delivery system for educating Wilkinsburg students.   If so, move forward.  

Second, have the school board and a group of parents go to the Pennsylvania Department of Education and petition them to put the District into financial recovery, force the District into receivership and appoint a chief recovery officer.  Once the district is in receivership there are many things that can be done.

Option 1: Merger Model

1. Merge the Wilkinsburg School District with the Pittsburgh Public Schools.   Wilkinsburg has already contracted with Pittsburgh for Fire Protection and Garbage Collection.  
2. Allow Wilkinsburg students to attend any of the District magnet schools as well as the feeder pattern schools which would probably be Westinghouse and Allderdice High Schools.  

Option 2: Charter School Model

1. Close the Wilkinsburg schools.  
2. Invite a local successful charter school program such as Propel Schools (K-8) and City Charter High School (9-12) to open in the district.  
3. Or invite a national successful non-profit charter program an opportunity to take over a small borough and show that they can turn it around.    

Option 3: Voucher Model

1. Close the Wilkinsburg schools.  
2. Take the current budget and provide students with tuition payments to attend another district's schools.  Students could go to Pittsburgh Public Schools, Penn Hills, Woodland Hills, St. James Catholic School, Central Catholic High School, any number of Charter Schools or private schools such as Pittsburgh Urban Christian School, Ellis School or Winchester Thurston.  

Any of these three models would accomplish two very important goals.  First, our children would be given hope for the first time in 35 years.  They could choose a school that provides quality education for all of its students.  Second, this would make our borough a place where people would want to live and raise their children.  Property taxes would go down, quality of education would go up and many more children would have a future.    

I can hear my education brethren already.  Have you lost your mind?   Are you trying to destroy the union?  Are you simply trying to privatize education?  No, No and No.  I'm just trying to provide the children of Wilkinsburg with quality schools.  I'm tired of talking about the needs of the adults.  I'm tired of having philosophical/political discussions about Democrats, Republicans, labor unions, superintendents, school boards, capitalism, socialism, the private sector, the public sector.  And I'm tired of talking to administrators and staff who don't live in the borough, whose primary concern is their paycheck.  When do we get to focus purely on poverty, education and empowering our children?  This tiny little borough with its great location, great housing stock and $28 million school budget provides the worst education in the state.  

Do you really believe the solution to the problem is more money, traditional schools and trusting in the current leadership and staff?  Charters didn't put them where they are.  And neither did the state.  What occurred in Wilkinsburg had more to do with middle class flight, Section 8 housing and an education enterprise that didn't have a clue how to deal with the changing times.  It's 2014, and all the students want is a quality education, safe schools and opportunities for the future. It's not too much to ask.

What to do about Wilkinsburg - Part 1?

Let's step away from Pittsburgh and look at the borough where I have lived for 34 years, Wilkinsburg, PA.   We are one of the ring suburbs of Pittsburgh.  We were one of the best school districts in Pennsylvania in the 1950's and now we are one of the worst.  In 2012 on the state PSSA exam, out of 497 high schools in Pennsylvania, our 11th graders were 493rd in reading and 497th in mathematics. Our district has the fourth poorest student body in Allegheny County with 81% receiving free/reduced lunches. Residents have the highest rate of property tax in the state, yet last year, the school district had to borrow $3 million to make payroll.  According to the Pennsylvania Department of Education, Wilkinsburg's graduation rate was 53% in 2011.

Imagine, we spend more than almost any school district in the state, have the worst student achievement in Pennsylvania and are near bankruptcy.  

Read the recent Post-Gazette article "For at least 20 years, interlocking problems have plagued Wilkinsburg schools".  Frankly, anyone who has lived in a rust-belt city in America knows this story.  

However,there is one quote from the article that brings me to the point of this post.  

The president of the teacher union and 37-year veteran of the district, Mike Evans is -- perhaps more than most -- acutely aware of the district's problems.  His voice might sound raspy at first, but it fills with a deep sense of conviction for public education when asked about the district's future. He acknowledges that the number of programs are dwindling, that aides and support staff in classrooms have been furloughed and archery, tennis and swimming are no longer offered.

He'll tell you the tax base is eroding and that there is a perception that 1990s-era gang violence is still a problem. When he started, the schools were racially integrated. Now, about 95 percent of students are African-American and the vast majority are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.  When asked why all of these things are true, he said it is because the state has failed in its responsibility to adequately fund districts like Wilkinsburg.

"Teaching in Wilkinsburg under the conditions the governor and the Legislature puts us in makes it extremely depressing," Mr. Evans said. "Pennsylvania doesn't seem to have a problem at all when they need to build a new prison. But when it's time to help children so maybe they won't wind up there, there isn't enough money."

Mr. Evans, and many of the public education advocates in Pittsburgh, believe the problem is that "the state has failed in its responsibility to adequately fund the district".  Is that the problem?   This is a level of denial that is significant.  No one is willing to talk about issues brought on by the sudden change in demographics that occurred in the 1970's, the middle class flight to the suburbs, loss of jobs, child poverty, the two different Wilkinsburgs - the middle class areas (Regent Square and Blackridge) versus the abandoned poorer areas.  No one is speaking about the slum landlords, Section 8 housing, incompetent leadership, an entrenched and militant union and decades of mediocre school boards.  It is so much safer to just focus on money.  Yet money is not our problem.  Here are some facts.

The Board passed a 2013-14 budget for $28,000,000.  There are 1,600 school age children in Wilkinsburg.  350 attend private or parochial schools.  These students cost the district nothing.  Another 250 students attend charter schools at a tuition rate of about $12,000 per student or $32,000 per special education student.  This costs the district $3 million.  That leaves a budget of $25 million for 1000 students or $25,000 per student.  That is a higher per student cost than nearly every school in America.

Recent scandals pertaining to costly administrative retreats, hiring suspect consultants, hiring a superintendent that had been recently fired by another district all contribute to a community belief that the problem is not fixable.  The past Board President and various other board members have been on the board for decades.  It has gotten so bad, that at the 2012 high school graduation ceremonies, the valedictorian threw her prepared speech out and called out the district and the board stating the students have been provided with a "substandard education".

The problem with the Wilkinsburg schools is not hard to figure out, if one is willing to discuss the elephant in the room.  For decades (from the 1930s through the 1960s) Wilkinsburg was a middle class, white, religious borough (it is called "the town of churches") that had quality schools.  Frankly, it was not a welcoming place for blacks, Jews or poor people.  In the 1960s when urban renewal downtown created a black migration from the Hill District, through East Liberty, Lincoln, Larimer and Homewood, residents in Wilkinsburg began to experience that classic American fear that their neighborhood would change, crime would go up, and the value of their houses would go down.  Many residents began moving further east to Forest Hills, Penn Hills, Edgewood, Churchill, Monroeville and Murrysville.  Instead of selling their homes after their parents passed away, many converted them to 3 apartment units, often Section 8 rentals.  In an extremely short period of time, the district went from being all white and middle class, to mixed race and lower income.  Many residents who stayed sent their children to private or parochial schools.  A large number of students faked addresses in the city or Penn Hills to attend public schools outside of Wilkinsburg.  Thus the Wilkinsburg schools were teaching a transient, poorer population that existing staff could not relate to.

From an educational perspective, school district personnel did not have a clue what to do. They continued to teach in a manner that ignored student deficiencies that were a result of growing up in poverty.  They blamed the students and their families for the poor achievement.  I don't blame the middle class white teachers for not having a clue as to how to succeed with a new demographic.  Nothing in their education or life experience had prepared them to work with a more needy population.  And school leadership did not have an idea as to how to succeed as well.  40 years later we are left with the shell of an educational program.

Sometimes our borough feels like a bombed out city must feel after a war.    

Take a drive down Rebecca Ave. if you don't believe me.

Shell shock... Post Traumatic Stress Disorder... Sitting in rubble.


So on the one hand Mike Evan's statement above makes sense.  The veteran teacher and local union president is beaten and is not sure what to do.  He externalizes his anger.  He blames the state.  It is not part of human nature to take a look inward and look for fault.  Seldom does it occur to anyone that our Wilkinsburg youth can be educated and achieve at high levels given a safe, supportive and caring environment.  It is too easy to blame their poverty than to seriously build a system designed to overcome it.

I would suggest that the schools are dead and our children have been abandoned.  I would suggest the same is true for the borough itself.  And yet we are spending $25,000 per student.  I do not believe we can fix the existing Wilkinsburg schools - too much baggage, too many cynics, too little hope.  I do believe that there are options the district could take.  But we have to think outside of the box.  I will talk about what I think we should do with our school system in my second Wilkinsburg post.