Anatomy of a Pittsburgh Education Discussion

The final scene from the film "The Good, The Bad and the Ugly".  

I'm a sucker for old westerns.  There's a scene in the end of the movie where the three gunslingers, stand in a circle and draw against each other.  Not that it matters, but Clint Eastwood was the good, Lee Van Cleef was the Bad and Eli Wallach was the ugly. In the middle of the circle is the gold each is after.  At some point after a few minutes of building tension they all shoot.  Let's just say that they all don't survive.  I know... you think I've lost my mind.  But I can't get this image out of my head as I consider what discussing public education is like in Pittsburgh... or the United States for that matter.  Just for a moment, imagine one of the cowboys represents the school district administration and one of the cowboys represents the teachers and their union and the last cowboy represents "the community" in both a general and specific sense.  The community includes you and me, the media, organizations such as Yinzercation, A+ Schools, the Urban League, Great Schools Pittsburgh... frankly anyone with an opinion about our schools.  And remember that in the middle of the circle there is our gold, our children.

Last week I was reading the Pittsburgh Teacher Quality Roadmap report that was recently produced by the National Council for Teacher Quality (NCTQ.)  The report was contracted by A+ Schools in conjunction with the Urban League of Pittsburgh.  On Thursday, May 22 the report went public and A+ Schools hosted an open house where representatives from NCTQ presented the findings.  As is typical of any Pittsburgh education discussion, it devolved into an argument of little depth played out in the mainstream media. The argument appears to be between the union, the administration and A+ Schools.  Since A+ Schools contracted for the report, some background is in order.

"A+ Schools is the community advocate and leader for educational equity and excellence in Pittsburgh Public Schools. Our core purpose and focus of our work is to remove any barriers to equity in our schools. We are dedicated to educating the public, increasing awareness and engaging the community in efforts to advance change."

A+ Schools conducts research pertaining to the public schools of Pittsburgh.  The research is posted on their website and falls into the following categories: Great Teaching, School Budgets, Access to Opportunities and Individual Supports, and School Board Governance.

A+ Schools contracted with the National Council on Teacher Quality to provide a Teacher Quality Roadmap for the district.  The Roadmap covers five areas: Staffing, Evaluation, Talent Management, Compensation and Professional Culture.  A look at the media reporting on the Roadmap typifies how education discussions tumble out of control.

May 21 - Pittsburgh schools await progress report (Pittsburgh Tribune Review)

"A report to be released on Thursday gives Pittsburgh Public Schools high marks for evaluating and compensating teachers but urges the district to shelve a state-required eligibility list for hiring teachers."

May 22 - Study recommends changes for the Pittsburgh Public Schools (KDKA-CBS)

"The report recommends changes district wide, but it’s not all bad. It also explains what the district is doing right, such as Pittsburgh’s new teacher evaluation system."

May 22 - Report: Pittsburgh Strong On Teacher Evaluations, But Changes Needed (WESA)

"The National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) released a report stating Pittsburgh has come a long way in terms of measuring effective teachers and compensating educators. But the report also states more needs to be done, including making sure the Pittsburgh Public School District ensures every school has effective teachers."

May 22 - Pittsburgh Teacher Absenteeism Called 'Startling" (Post-Gazette)

"While Pittsburgh Public Schools has been pushing to improve student attendance, the National Council on Teacher Quality has taken a look at teacher attendance.  In a report released Thursday, the council found that city teachers were out of the classroom an average of 12 days in 2012-13.  About a quarter of days counted are ones approved by the district -- not sick or personal days -- including professional development and designing the district's teacher evaluation system.  About 11 percent of teachers missed class three or fewer days. The analysis does not count absences of more than 10 consecutive days. The contract provides 12 sick days and two personal days.  School superintendent Linda Lane said she found the teacher absentee numbers "pretty startling."

May 27 - Report on teachers' absences is misleading, Letter to the Editor, (Post-Gazette)

"I am writing in response to the article “Pittsburgh Teachers’ Absenteeism Called ‘Startling’ ” (May 23), and I have a confession to make. I am a chronically absent teacher. To date, this school year I’ve missed six days of work for illness, personal responsibilities and a funeral.  But I’ve also worked 12 days when I was not in the classroom. These days included a trip to Dallas to study systems that identify students’ college readiness and a field trip to Carnegie Mellon University, where students studied architecture, drew and wrote poetry that was later published. I went with students to Camp Guyasuta and to the Heinz History Center, both wonderful learning experiences for all of us.

However, since the policy advocates who wrote the National Council on Teacher Quality report decided to lump together professional and personal absences, the headline had a good deal of shock value.  Make no mistake about it, they could have chosen to separate the absences and not to eviscerate many teachers like me, but that’s not their style. Throughout the country, this group has become legendary for teacher-blaming and perpetuating policy recommendations about teacher evaluation and talent management that have no support in actual research. The report on Pittsburgh schools is no different. 

I am chronically absent. And it sure is startling. But what should be more startling is that anyone who cares about public education would give credence to statistics that are clearly used to embarrass those of us who dedicate our lives to teaching Pittsburgh’s students."

May 28 - Teacher Bashing, Letter to the Editor, Post-Gazette

I am writing in response to Eleanor Chute’s article with the headline “Pittsburgh Teacher Absenteeism Called ‘Startling’ ” (May 23). Perhaps a better headline might have been “Dedicated teachers take fewer than allotted sick days.” With teachers constantly in contact with sick children it is “startling” that they do not miss more days.

Every moment in a child’s education is precious. However, I know of teachers forced to leave their classrooms for six days in a row due to PSSA testing. I wrote to Pittsburgh Public Schools superintendent Linda Lane and her Cabinet on March 26 concerning this absenteeism due to testing. It is therefore "startling” to me that Ms. Lane expressed surprise and concern when teachers used fewer than their allotted sick days but that she was not “startled” by missed classroom time related to testing. Perhaps instead of teacher bashing and using misleading headlines, you should focus on how to best support our hard-working educators.

May 27 - Tough Subject: PPS, union differ on usefulness of teacher-quality report (City Paper)

 Excerpts from the article.

• "We did not endorse [the NCTQ report]," says PFT President Nina Espositio-Visgitis. "We discouraged members from participating, based on the NCTQ's track record. They continue the over-focus on teacher quality and what we want is a broader effort to strengthen schools."

• On a central office survey of teachers who attempted to transfer voluntarily for the 2013-2014 school year, nearly half of the respondents said they would not move to a hard-to-staff school. At the NCTQ presentation on May 22, Superintendent Linda Lane found this statistic especially troubling. "If you're coming to us saying, 'I don't want to go to your most challenging schools,' then maybe you should go to [another school district]," Lane said. "Those are not the teachers we need."

• Esposito-Visgitis, who declined to attend the report presentation, told City Paper that the district is responsible for these teachers' responses. "If the district would address the teaching and learning environments in these schools, we have shown that not to be the case," Espositio-Visgitis says. "Put a good principal there and people would flock there." 

• But Lane says some teachers' aversion to working in high-needs schools comes from the challenges of working with students of diverse races and those living in poverty. "We have to be honest about the fact that there are professionals who don't want to deal with either of those issues [race and poverty]," Lane said.

• "There are a number of policy barriers working against getting the most effective teachers in front of the most vulnerable kids," says Carey Harris, executive director of A+ Schools. Some of these state restrictions include use of the eligibility list, which is a state-required ranking of teacher applicants, in hiring and staffing decisions. According to NCTQ, the list keeps administrators from interviewing candidates who might not be at the top of the list, but would still be a good fit for a high-needs school.

• Other recommendations include having Pittsburgh continue to use its new evaluation system and allowing performance to be a factor in determining which teacher will be laid off. PFT President Esposito-Visgitis sees these recommendations as yet another attack on her members, and another way for the district to place blame on teachers without looking at additional factors that impact student performance. "It's always the same," Esposito-Visgitis says. "It doesn't address poverty; it doesn't address school leadership. It's the same old, same old for years."

Out of an 85 page report, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette chose to focus on the following words:

The district had an attendance rate of 94 percent in the 2012-2013 school year, but that number masks teachers at both ends of this spectrum. Teachers were out of the classroom an average of 12 days that year, but 11 percent of teachers were out of the classroom three days or fewer. On the other end of the spectrum, after eliminating long-term leaves due to events such as surgery or childbirth, 18 percent of the teacher workforce in Pittsburgh were “chronically absent,” meaning they were absent more than 18 days out of 192.

The P-G report ratcheted up the controversy and sold more newspapers. Is teacher attendance a problem?  And why should we focus on teacher attendance?

There is a simple premise that school is based on.  The core of the learning experience occurs when the teacher and students are in their classroom working together.  The minimum days required in this country (180) is far below that of most other countries in the world.  Thus school attendance is even more important due to our limited number of days.

Japan	243		New Zealand	190
West Germany	266-240		Nigeria	190
South Korea	220		British Columbia	185
Israel	216		France	185
Luxembourg	216		Ontario	185
Soviet Union	211		Ireland	184
Netherlands	200		New Brunswick	182
Scotland	200		Quebec	180
Thailand	200		Spain	180
Hong Kong	195		Sweden	180
England/Wales	192		United States	180
Hungary	192		French Belgium	175
Switzerland	191		Flemish Belgium	160
Finland	190

It is appropriate to look at school attendance for both students and teachers as being key to achievement gains. Obviously, when a student is not in class they are not learning. And when a teacher is not in class the drop off in learning with a substitute teacher is huge. It is also appropriate to look at school disruptions that hinder the educational process. These might include field trips (dare I say Kennywood), teacher leave for professional development, long testing periods, assemblies, etc.  Bottom line... good things happen when school is in session and the teacher and students are in the classroom.  

So looking at teacher attendance is a reasonable consideration.  It is important to note that any discussion of teacher attendance should factor out long term attendance issues caused by extended illness.  The Teacher Quality Roadmap report did factor out long term absences. 

I would suggest that looking at teacher attendance trends can be a telling sign of morale, teacher buy-in and school culture.  After 35 years in public schools in Pittsburgh, I've noticed a large variance in the use of teacher sick/personal days. Teachers in PPS receive 12 sick days and 2 personal days each year.  If you don't use these days, they carry over from year to year. Some teachers retire with over 350 sick days not used and others use every single one. Individual teacher attendance concerns are specific to the individual.  The causes for being absent can be personal (i.e. illness, family needs, depression) or professionally related (i.e. teacher is struggling, having a hard time coping, has a poor relationship with school leadership).  In the best scenario, the school principal works with the individual teacher to address attendance concerns.  

Differences in attendance by school can be an indication that there is a problem at the school. It could be a leadership problem, as pointed out by the head of the union in the articles above, or a school morale problem caused by dissension, poor student achievement or constant faculty or leadership turnover. In the best scenario, the district administration works with the principal on school attendance concerns.  Whether the attendance problem is at the individual or school level, attendance is one indicator as to whether employees are "in the game".   

There is a fundamental problem with the attendance data in the Teacher Quality Roadmap.  The report includes absences for illness and personal reasons and adds to that absences for professional reasons (e.g. field trips and professional development.) The reason this is an issue is that the responsibility for absences for personal reasons is the teacher's and the responsibility for the professional absences is the school's. The report put the two together because they looked at teacher absences from the student's perspective - "My teacher is not here today." The answer to the question about absences lies in the details. 

The union says the teachers are being picked on and the Superintendent finds the numbers "startling". At any time either of the two parties could put an end to this foolishness by simply publishing the actual data. Out of the 14 personal/sick days, what is the mean and median number that teachers take annually?  If the number is exorbitantly high, than the teachers and the union have to answer to the problem.  The second question - what is the mean and median number of absences per teacher due to professional considerations?  If the number is exorbitantly high than the district needs to answer to that problem. Just a guess, but the fact that neither side will publish this data leads me to believe they both have a problem they are covering up.  

It is an interesting dynamic that the study was contracted by A+ Schools and the Urban League.  Thus, it took a number of outside nonprofits to publicly address the issue of teacher quality (or attendance in this case.)  A+ Schools has addressed the issue of Board quality through its Board Watch Report Cards.  They have addressed the issue of individual school quality through its Annual Community Report.  They have addressed the issue of school finance through its Budget Reports.  They are trying to inform the public as to the key issues that hold Pittsburgh back from becoming a quality school district. They probably are despised by both the union and the Board since they are independent of the district and shining a light on school district issues.    

As these arguments unfold in the media, our worldview is always seen as black or white, right or wrong, you're for teachers or against teachers, you're for school leadership or against school leadership, you're for community input or against community input.  But of course, we're all for the children.  

Everyone knows what's right, yet the district is falling apart - losing students, decreasing achievement, running out of money.  The data will show you that there are many teachers who do an excellent job and a much smaller number who do terrible work... and many who fall in between and need support to get better.  The same can be said about building principals.  And Central Office employees.  Pittsburgh is still having the same fight it did when the district had 48,000 students and twice as many teachers.  We will fight to the bitter end... and that end is in sight.  72,000 students, 48,000 students, 24,000 students.  Next stop 12,000 students. The adversarial relationship between the schools, the union and the community is an old 20th century methodology.  Either we work together and produce models that work or the children become orphans.  As we continue to fight, our children are losing valuable time.  

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly... in no particular order.  

School as a PUMP or FILTER - Brown v. Board of Ed.

Today's blogpost tells the story of the attempted integration of the Pittsburgh Public Schools from 1964 to the present. It gives background as to how we got to where we are today and points out an inherent issue we have in our country - a deep desire by many citizens to live in segregated communities and attend segregated schools.  Some would call this racism, others would attribute it to fear.  Either way, segregation is not a PUMP, it is a FILTER.  Note that this post contains a number of original documents in an attempt to capture the attitude of the times.  

---

1954
Pittsburgh, 71,000 Students, 74% white, 26% black 

AP WAS THERE: Original 1954 Brown v. Board story By HERB ALTSCHULL, The Associated Press: May 17, 1954

The Supreme Court ruled today that the states of the nation do not have the right to separate Negro and white pupils in different public schools.  By a unanimous 9-0 vote, the high court held that such segregation of the races is unconstitutional. Chief Justice Warren read the historic decision to a packed but hushed gallery of spectators nearly two years after Negro residents of four states and the District of Columbia went before the court to challenge the principle of segregation. The ruling does not end segregation at once. Further hearings were set for this fall to decide how and when to end the practice of segregation. Thus a lengthy delay is likely before the decision is carried out.

This landmark decision overruled the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson ruling that allowed "separate but equal" accommodations in public facilities, such as bathrooms, water fountains and in the case of Plessy, railroad cars. Because Plessy dealt with public areas where people came together out of necessity, putting integration into action was somewhat easier - when blacks and whites came together in public spaces, both would have access to the same facilities. Integrating schools would be a far greater challenge since most people lived in segregated communities and attended their neighborhood schools. The races did not come together out of necessity for school. Thus school integration would have to be a more deliberate, active event. Therein was the challenge. 

---

1964
10 years after Brown v. Board of Ed.
Pittsburgh, 77,000 Students, 109 schools, 63.3% white, 36.7% black 

In the 1960's when the federal Civil Rights Act was passed, Pittsburgh was a segregated city by neighborhood and school.  And white flight to the suburbs had slowly begun.  The white population of the city schools decreased by 22% from 1945 to 1965. In 1965 the district authorized a report - The Quest for Racial Equality in the Pittsburgh Public Schools: Annual Report 1965.  The chart below from the report provides the trend that began in the district after World War II.

As one can see the "Negro" population in the district increased from 18,356 when Brown v. Board of Ed. occurred to 28,242 10 years later.  The report goes on to state that the district had segregated schools.  The following graph from the report provides a baseline for student achievement in segregated elementary schools.  The lowest achieving elementary schools were nearly all black and the highest achieving elementary schools were all white. Note that 2/3 of the schools in Pittsburgh were achieving at a level higher than the National median. 

One can also see from the report that Pittsburgh did not suggest integrating its schools to address the challenge created in the 1954 Supreme Court ruling.  The amazing explanation below states that 10 years after Brown v. Board or Ed., Pittsburgh was not ready for integration. Compensatory education is another name for trying to make separate equal. You sense from the tone of the explanation that in 1964 district leaders did not believe the community would tolerate any attempt at integration.  They suggested this would occur only when there existed a "newly enlightened society".

---

1977
23 years after Brown v. Board of Ed.
Pittsburgh, 59,000 Students, 97 schools

Post Gazette, Feb. 26, 1977

Starting with the 1965 report on Racial Equality, the Pittsburgh Board of Education committed itself to compensatory methods for improving Black academic achievement.  These included more black staff/teachers, pre-school (Head Start), culturally sensitive books and resources, increased college opportunities, vocational technical training and creating an open school policy allowing for voluntary transfers to schools where room existed.  

In 1968 the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) determined that Pittsburgh was not attempting to integrate and therefore asked for a desegregation plan to create racial balance in the district.  The district provided a plan that was based on voluntary integration using magnet schools and building new schools and adjusting feeder patterns. The PHRC was dissatisfied and ordered the district to put a plan in place by 1971-72.  There was a huge amount of community and parent push back not to integrate the district.  In one case, white students were reassigned to a predominantly black school (Knoxville) with disastrous results.  The district submitted a plan in 1973 that the parents opposed because it went too far and PHRC denied because it did not go far enough.  This battle went back and forth for over 7 years.  The district continued to push for volunteer integration and the public demanded the schools to not force integration.  PHRC and the courts demanded a comprehensive plan.  While this struggle continued, whites were fleeing to the suburbs. 

In 1980, the district student population was down to 48,000 students. PPS implemented an integration plan based on new schools (e.g. Brashear, Reizenstein), new feeder patterns and magnets.  The Brashear High School plan was a perfect case in point.  The old Fifth Ave. High School in the black community called the Hill District was falling apart. The same could be said of Gladstone High School in a very poor community called Hazelwood. And South Hills High School in a white community was in need of numerous upgrades. The district chose to build a brand new state of the art comprehensive high school in the South Hills, a white community.  PPS closed the other high schools, created Brashear High School and bused students to the school.  Over 60 buses arrived every morning with students from 5 neighborhoods. Faculty had to petition to work at Brashear and were hand selected in an attempt to create a model school. The school opened in 1976.  (An aside... I taught mathematics at Brashear from 1980 - 1986.)  The school was a magnificent structure, the faculty was engaged and the programming included vocational options like a student run restaurant, auto mechanics and body repair, dry cleaning, computer science, excellent sports and a quality academic program. This was one of the first real attempts at integration in the district.  Although I don't have data to confirm my impression as a teacher at Brashear, I believed that the school worked. There was little or no violence, minimal racial tension and there was the beginning of a sociological learning process for how the races could work side by side and get educated.  

The PHRC went to court, but lost and Pittsburgh's plan went forward.  Magnets, voluntary new school programs, were done by signup and were racially balanced.  Parents stood in line for days waiting to get their children into these select schools.  The magnet programs flourished.  The three distinctions of the magnets were 1. they were racially balance (aligned with the district demographic), 2. they had a specific emphasis such as foreign language, or math and science or a classical academy and 3. parents had to wait in line to get in.  Thus there appeared to be a level of exclusivity.  Magnet schools tended to have motivated staff, interested parents and were integrated.  Their achievement scores were superior to the district's comprehensive feeder pattern schools.  However, the majority of non-magnet schools remained segregated.  Brashear and Reizenstein were the exception.  

---

2000
46 years after Brown v. Board of Ed
Pittsburgh, 39,000 students, First Charter School is approved

In the late 1990's three issues came together to change the urban education landscape. The first major change nationally occurred during the late 1980s and 1990s. During that time, the Supreme Court ruled that the methods used for integration of schools were unconstitutional. After a decade of controversial attempts at integration through busing, school districts began to back pedal.  A Harvard University Civil Rights Project paper written by Gary Orfield - SCHOOLS MORE SEPARATE: CONSEQUENCES OF A DECADE OF RESEGREGATION details this return to segregated schools.  

Almost a half century after the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Southern school segregation was unconstitutional and “inherently unequal,” new statistics from the 1998-99 school year show that segregation continued to intensify throughout the 1990s, a period in which there were three major Supreme Court decisions authorizing a return to segregated neighborhood schools and limiting the reach and duration of desegregation orders. For African American students, this trend is particularly apparent in the South, where most blacks live and where the 2000 Census shows a continuing return from the North. From 1988 to 1998, most of the progress of the previous two decades in increasing integration in the region was lost. The South is still much more integrated than it was before the civil rights revolution, but it is moving backward at an accelerating rate.

The second change locally could be seen in the district's demographics.  By the year 2000, the Pittsburgh Public Schools lost 50% of its students since the discussion of integration began in the mid-1960's. The middle class voted with their feet... they would rather move than attend integrated schools.  Racism and fear was still a major issue in our country and in Pittsburgh. When people of means leave an urban school district, the remaining population, on average, are poorer and have more risk factors that hinder education. Thus, when one focuses on test results, it appears that the schools are doing a much worse job than they had in the past.

The third change at the state level was the passage of the PA Charter School Act in 1997. This was followed by the founding of the first charter school in Pittsburgh - Northside Urban Pathways - in 1998.  The state legislature passed the charter school law as a reaction to over 40 years of failed efforts to integrate public schools and the perception that public schools, particularly in urban areas, were not doing a good job and were not willing to change.

I would suggest that Charter Schools were the result of "the perfect storm" in urban public education.  Middle class students leave the district in droves, remaining students are much more at risk due to poverty, crime and crumbling neighborhoods and district schools are slow to understand that the current education model (that achieved above the National Median in 1964) was woefully inadequate with the current population.  So the state created an alternative to try and jump start "the use of different and innovative teaching methods".

There were many who believed that Pittsburgh charter schools would take the best students, thereby hurting the public schools.  That, of course, should have been the same argument they had against district magnet schools.  But that argument was not made because magnets are part of the school district, using district employees and attempting to comply with the state Human Relations Commission requirements.  A study of local charter school demographics (in my last blogpost) shows that the district's magnet high schools, comprehensive schools and charter schools all have poverty levels over 50% (CAPA is the exception.)  Clearly the tension created by the charter schools has less to do with their results and their student body and more to do with their funding.  It is estimated that the charter schools in Pittsburgh take over $50 million from the district annually.

---

2014
60 Years after Brown v. Board of Ed.  Pittsburgh, 24,000 Students, 50 schools, 54% black, 34% white.  

It is now 60 years since the Brown v. Board of Ed. ruling that separate is not equal.  And it is 50 years since PPS began addressing the issue of school inequality with respect to race. What is the state of the district with respect to race.  The chart below is telling.  The data from the chart comes from school district and state reports.*

First, you can see that the district, no matter what kind of school, has students with a high level of poverty (between 62 and 89%).  This is due mainly to middle class flight to the suburbs.  Note that there are only 1/3 as many students in the district than when Brown v. Board of Ed. occurred in the 1950's.

Second, you can see that district magnet schools, partial magnets and integrated schools are very close to the district average in racial balance (54% black, 34% white.)

Third, note that the magnet schools and white schools have much higher PSSA scores than the other schools in the district.  Also note they have the lowest poverty levels (62-64%).

Fourth, note that 30% of the students in the district attend segregated schools.  Black schools have much lower PSSA scores than White schools.  If you look just at the White or Black schools you will note that there is a 25% difference in their poverty statistics (64% vs. 89%).

So currently the District is a mixed bag of magnets, integrated schools and segregated schools.  The white schools and the full magnet schools have the highest achievement.  Some of this is attributable to their having less students in poverty.  And in the case of full magnets, the filter of choice - meaning having parents that actively choose a school, appears to have an impact on achievement.

---

The Takeaway... The Future 

Brown v. Board of Ed. was a seminal moment in our history.  It stated clearly that all students deserve a quality education and providing separate buildings and programs by race was/is not acceptable.  Pittsburgh made a concerted effort to desegregate their schools through choice options such as magnet schools and building new schools with integrated feeder patterns.  60 years later segregated Pittsburgh neighborhoods still exist and segregated schools still exist.  60 years later we are still waiting for the "newly enlightened society".

The growth of the suburbs changed the playing field with respect to education.  In a mobile society with a strong middle class, people will live where they want and educate their children as they choose.  When a school district drops to 1/3 of its original size, and the suburbs attract the wealthiest and most mobile of the population, it creates an extremely challenging problem.  I wish it were as easy as integrating every school in order to raise our achievement.  In 1964, Pittsburgh had 67% of its elementary schools score above the National Median.  In 2013, Pittsburgh had only 20% of its schools score above the Pennsylvania average.  It is easy to see that Westinghouse High School is an all black school and has one of the lowest achievement levels in the state.  It provides justification for the racists and their stupid beliefs that a race can be inferior. It is much harder for them to understand why Brashear High School is an integrated school with a majority white population and also has one of the lowest achievement levels in the state.  Urban schools have been abandoned.  To grapple with urban education is to grapple with poverty and a class society.  What was once a racial problem appears to have become a socioeconomic problem.  Employment, poverty, broken families all have a deep effect on educational achievement.

If you wanted to integrate schools now, you would have to do it on a county level, meaning you would have to involve the suburbs.  An attempt in that direction was made with the creation of the Woodland Hills School District - three poorer school districts (Braddock, Rankin and Swissvale) and two wealthier school districts (Edgewood and Churchill.)  It was a valiant effort, but the middle class began to move away or avail themselves of private schools and the district slowly fell apart.  Their achievement scores have steadily dropped over the years and are similar to Pittsburgh's.

We can continue to wait for a "newly enlightened society" or we can learn from schools that succeed in the urban core.  They do exist.  They do things differently.  They are leading the way towards empowering our urban youth.  They will be the focus of my next blogposts.

---

*For the sake of this blogpost, I took the school district data and broke schools down into the 5 categories listed.

1. Full magnets have no feeder patterns, they are completely filled by lottery (e.g. CAPA, Obama, Montessori).  
2. Partial magnets have a feeder pattern, but have a unique program within its school that students outside of the feeder can apply to (e.g. the engineering magnet at Allderdice.)
3. Integrated comprehensive schools are within one standard deviation of the the district's mean racial demographic (e.g. Arlington K8, Westwood ES)
4. White schools are neighborhood schools with a white population that is over one standard deviation above the district demographic (e.g. Southbrook MS, Brookline ES).
5. Black schools are neighborhood schools with a black population that is over one standard deviation above the district demographic (e.g. Mller ES, Westinghouse HS).

School as a PUMP or a FILTER - Yinzercation speaks...

Two reports and a Yinzercation blog post and I'm getting a little upset.  

April 2014 Charter & Cyber Charter School Reform Update from the Democratic House Education Committee  

May 12, 2014 Auditor General DePasquale Releases Charter School Report, Recommends Creation of Independent Oversight Board

The state legislature is currently in the process of rewriting the charter school law. Lobbyists are everywhere, representing the unions, school boards, charter schools, school districts, etc. After reading the two state reports listed above, I found them relatively balanced and attempting to compromise between the two points of view - the districts' and the charters'. Typical of any compromise, both sides are never completely happy, but they are getting close to cutting the baby in half.  

After the publication of the first report, the Yinzercation blog posted an article entitled "12 problems with Charter Schools".  The author states in the first paragraph of the article:

"Are there good charter schools? You might be surprised to hear my short answer to this question, which is “yes.” 

The author goes on to mention the model Pittsburgh area charter schools that are named in the report.  I should mention that City Charter High School, the school I co-founded, was listed as one of only three model charter high schools in the state.  The author states that

"Many people I talk to these days assume that I am entirely anti-charter. That’s not true." 

So after stating that the author is not "entirely anti-charter" she proceeds with a blogpost entitled the 12 problems with charter schools.  Here are the 12 problems listed:

1. Most are not helping kids.
2. Some are actually hurting kids. 
3. Far too many are cash cows.
4. The industry is rife with fraud and corruption.
5. Lack of transparency and accountability.
6. Skimming and weed-out strategies.
7. Contribute to the re-segregation of U.S. education.
8. Drain resources from struggling districts.
9. Closing traditional public schools.
10. Lack of innovation.
11. Hard to get rid of the bad ones.
12. Charters promote “choice” as solution.

After reading this long discussion about everything that was wrong with charter schools, I decided to review poverty vs. AYP statistics for Pittsburgh Public High Schools and Pittsburgh Charter High Schools.  In the following table, Pittsburgh high schools are ranked based on their combined 2012 PSSA scores (687 PA high schools are ranked from highest to lowest - #1 to #687.) The second column states the percentage of students who live in poverty who attend that school.* 

It is no surprise that the blog does not put the local public schools under the same scrutiny with respect to the 12 problems. The four schools with the least amount of poverty were the district's magnet high schools (CAPA, Sci-Tech, Obama) and Taylor Allderdice, not the charters. And the four lowest achieving schools were also district schools, not the charters. The four lowest achieving high schools were in the bottom 10% of the state.  I do not put this information out to damn the local public schools, but to bring the assertions of the Yinzercation blog into question.  Nor do I intend to bore the reader with a step by step refutation of these assertions.  As much as I'd like to, I'm afraid I would lose my readers.

The blog put out a challenge to the high performing charters:

"How will the region’s six high-performing charter schools identified in Rep. Roebuck’s report help to address these 12 concerns? How can we make their noteworthy work a part of the conversation about improving public education for all students?" 

Let me tell you a true story.  When I was working in the Pittsburgh Public Schools in 2000, we (the Office of Instructional Technology) implemented a project at Peabody High School that helped students obtain Microsoft Certifications.  Computers were purchased through a Link to Learn grant, a teacher volunteered to run the program and it was implemented.  It was not uncommon for the students in the Business Education classes to be the lowest achieving, most at-risk students in the school.  In the first year the teacher was able to help his students to obtain over 175 Microsoft Office certifications.  The program was a huge success.  We approached the principal and asked if we could expand the program next year, get a few more computer labs and train a few more teachers.  There would be no cost to the school.  The principal declined saying that other faculty members weren't open to this new technology and we would have to wait until we had a younger staff.  We approached the Director of Vocational Education for the district and tried to implement the program at the district level. We would pay for it and train staff; he could take the credit.  He threw us out of his office. Business Education was none of our business.  

Frustrated, we (myself and a fellow teacher) approached the Heinz Endowments about starting a charter school that was created from the ground up whose mission would be preparing students for the 21st century workplace.  They gave us a planning grant to design the school in 2001.  During that year we put an advisory committee together and worked on the school plan.  We asked Superintendent John Thompson of the Pittsburgh Public Schools to be on our advisory committee and consider the possibility of allowing the school to open from within the district.  He threw us out of his office.  We presented the school to the Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers senior staff - Al Fondy, John Tarka and the executive committee.  We said that the district was struggling in their high schools.  We had a great model built on best practices to consider, money from the foundations and would like the union to consider partnering with us.  I said to the union leaders, "We could create a model high school and put a huge sign on the side of the building that said 'PFT reforms education in Pittsburgh'." They stated that it was not the union's job to do school reform and that if we leave the district and create this school they will oppose us any way they can.  Finally, we approached the leadership team at Peabody High School about chartering a school from within the district using the existing faculty (which the charter school law allowed.)  After a few weeks of consideration we were turned down.  

Hence our school became a charter school - City Charter High School.  We were turned down by the Superintendent, the union and a local high school.  We are now one of the model charter schools in the state (according to the report.)  Each of the charter schools in Pittsburgh has a similar story.  The Environmental Charter School (mentioned in the state report as being a quality charter school) opened in two old school buildings in the Regent Square area of Pittsburgh.  They opened because the District abandoned the schools and wanted the neighborhood parents to bus their children to other neighborhoods for elementary school. Manchester Academic Charter School (a Blue Ribbon school), Propel Northside Elementary School and Urban Pathways Middle/High School all opened because Northside parents were upset with many school closings on the North Side, and only low achieving schools left to attend.  The Urban League Charter School, also listed as a model charter school by the state, opened in East Liberty due to the large district racial achievement gap and a perceived need for a school with an Afro-Centric program.  All of these charter schools are non-profit entities.  None are trying to eliminate public education, they are just trying to give at-risk students in poverty an opportunity for success.  And by and large, they are succeeding at a rate that is higher than the current public school alternatives (see chart above.)


Unfortunately, I am led to believe that arguments put forth by Yinzercation with respect to its concerns for our children are disingenuous. Yinzercation is quick to blame school choice, the governor, the legislature, high stakes testing, etc. Its stand on major issues such as School Choice, Seniority Based Layoffs of Teachers and the state of the District's Budget is telling. When asked to confront an issue such as Seniority Based Layoffs, Yinzercation will always side with the union rather than the needs of children.  

How self-righteous is Yinzercation when it calls upon the charters to answer to the 12 concerns. Why doesn't it measure the public schools using the same 12 concerns?  Let's pick one concern to dig a little deeper.  To state that charter schools contribute to the resegregation of education in America is appalling and simply incorrect. The resegregation of American schools started before charter schools were ever invented. Gary Orfield, from the Harvard University Civil Rights Project, published a paper entitled Schools More Separate: Consequences of a Decade of Resegregation in 2001.  If you want background on the resegregation of American schools read Orfield's paper. Locally, the Pittsburgh Public Schools began resegregating their schools when they went to neighborhood K-8 schools while eliminating most of the comprehensive middle schools. They closed a number of comprehensive high schools and created haves (the magnets) and have nots (the comprehensive schools).  The achievement listed in the chart above documents this. Charter schools resegregating America... hardly. Pittsburgh did that job all on their own.  The most you could say about Pittsburgh charter high schools is that they reflect the racial balance of the district as a whole.  For the record, City Charter High School has a racial balance that is much more consistent with the District's overall demographic than most of its high schools.  

And how shallow is the Yinzercation blog's question "How can we make their noteworthy work a part of the conversation about improving public education for all students?"  Don't ask the charter schools that question, ask the district.  The district oversees these charter schools. They visit each school once a year and are provided with lengthy annual reports. They know what the charters are doing. The superintendent and the union president have been approached by the CEOs of Propel Schools and City Charter High School with a desire to collaborate.  The public schools are not a willing partner. They are in denial about their own schools and angry about the charters, just like Yinzercation.  

Consider this... Since the Nation At Risk Report in 1983, the district had 17 years of operation (up to 2000) without any charter schools in existence.  During that time there was no school choice for our inner city youth except for District magnets.  The number of high stakes tests were much less than currently exists.  And yet, during that time the school population plummeted, the expenditure per student skyrocketed and student achievement went down. I'd love to know who Yinzercation wants to blame for those 17 years.  Charter Schools did not create these problems, the problems created the Charter Schools.  

It is time for liberal, progressive, citizen oriented groups, such as Yinzercation, to elevate their game.  Truly progressive citizens are concerned with access for everyone; they see quality education as an enabler for a quality life. Truly progressive citizens would spend their time finding quality schools (no matter district, public, charter or private) for all students and quit fighting about charters vs. district schools.  It time to find a way to provide all of our children with a quality education.  It is time for Yinzercation to become a PUMP, not a FILTER.  
  
*The Poverty statistics can be found at  http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/national_school_lunch/7487 
and the PSSA statistics can be found at  http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/school_assessments/7442.

Testing: A PUMP or a FILTER?

Parents, students and educators are upset about testing.  When did testing take over the lives of educators and their students?  Why did it happen? Has it helped or hurt?  Are there any unintended consequences of testing systems?  It would be of value to take a look at how standardized testing has evolved in Pennsylvania.  Pay close attention to how the tests are reported out.

1971 - 1983 Pennsylvania Department of Education
The first test mandated by the Pennsylvania Department of Education was the Educational Quality Assessment (EQA).  This test of basic skills was administered every three years (on a revolving basis) in 5th, 8th and 11th grade.  Individual or teacher scores were not reported. The results were a tool to measure student achievement at the school level. This allowed districts to get some form of information as to how their schools were doing. Results on the EQA were highly correlated with standardized achievement tests that were often used by Districts (e.g. California Achievement Test, Iowa Test of Basic Skills.)

1984 - 1992 Pennsylvania Department of Education
In 1984 PDE moved from the EQA to a mandatory standardized test called Testing for Essential Learning and Literacy Skills (TELLS) in third, fifth and eighth grades. There were two key aspects of TELLS that differed from the ELA.  First, results were provided for each student.  Students who were working at less than a proficient level were given the opportunity for remediation offered through the using state funding. Second, results were reported in the media listing the percentage of students in each district that were eligible for remediation. For the first time testing became a methodology for comparing student achievement between districts.  

1986 - 1992 The Pittsburgh Public Schools

In 1986, Pittsburgh implemented its own testing program called Monitoring Achievement in Pittsburgh (MAP). The goal of MAP was to articulate clear learning objectives (basic skills) and raise student achievement by providing parents, students, teachers and administrators with quarterly updates as to how individual students were doing. Since the data could be analyzed at the student, classroom and school level, accountability was increased for all teachers and administrators.  The program was very successful at raising basic skill competencies at all levels.  This helped to boost student achievement on the state TELLS tests as well as other standardized tests used in the District (California Achievement Test.)

*The 1980's was the decade when standardized testing became high stakes. During the 1980's, the Pittsburgh Public Schools was administering six tests a year at all grade levels, MAP (4), TELLS and the California Achievement Tests.  At the state level, the publication of the TELLS test results in the media created an enormous amount of tension within and between districts. Real estate values were effected by these results. Better schools meant higher property values.  At the local level, the MAP test with its comprehensive reporting to all stakeholders increased tension within and between schools in Pittsburgh. Teachers were being called into their supervisor's offices to discuss low MAP results. Parents were calling teachers to know why their children were not improving on certain test items. In addition, due to the increased accountability for teachers, the MAP test items became the curriculum in classrooms.  Thus, there was pressure for Districts to teach to the TELLS test and for teachers to teach to the MAP test.  Using high stakes test and sharing the results had the unintended consequence of focusing the classroom curriculum almost exclusively on the items tested.

1992 - 2012 Pennsylvania Department of Education
In 1992 PDE moved from the TELLS exam to the Pennsylvania State Standardized Assessment (PSSA).  The PSSA was PDE's response to the issue that the test becomes the entire curriculum.  In order to move beyond basic skills, the PSSA was aligned with state standards for what should be taught in each subject area at each grade level.  The PSSA was a three part system: Core Learning Objectives, Assessment Anchors that articulate what students should be able to demonstrate for each objective and the Assessment itself.  The test is criterion referenced and has four levels of achievement: Advanced, Proficient, Basic and Below Basic. The test is currently offered in Reading/English, Writing, Mathematics and Science in grades 3-8 and 11. Results are reported by District and School externally and by Teacher and by Student internally.  

2001 - 2014 US Department of Education
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was a bipartisan program implemented under the Bush administration to increase student achievement. The program forced every state to create a testing system that was vetted by the Department of Education and made to align with certain common structures. The tests are only administered in Reading/English and Mathematics. Pennsylvania used the PSSA to meet this requirement.  The federal government negotiated cut scores by state and set yearly benchmarks that states (and schools) must achieve. The benchmarks represented what % of students must be proficient in order to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).  If a school or district did not meet the benchmark they would be placed in Warning.  Each additional year the benchmark was not reached moved the school or district through more negative distinctions (School Improvement or Correction status.)  And what exacerbated this distinction, was that the benchmark was raised year after year. DIstrict and School data were published in the media. The bad publicity for a school was devastating. Not surprisingly, NCLB in America and PSSA in Pennsylvania became the curriculum.  And because they tested just in Reading/English and Mathematics for NCLB, many other content areas were marginalized in terms of imortance.  

*At this point three important issues were being raised in the assessment dialogue.  First, by raising the benchmark year after year, most every school would eventually go into Warning. By the year 2014, 100% of the students in America were supposed to be proficient.  Thus, inherent to the design of the program, nearly every school in Pennsylvania would eventually be seen in a negative light. 

Second, a quick review of which schools went into Warning early on in the program found that it was schools dealing with students in poverty (urban and rural.)  Studies of the rankings of districts and schools according to PSSA results showed that there was a significant correlation between individual PSSA scores and socio-economic status.  Poor kids got low scores.  In fact, going back to the times of TELLS, researchers found only two significant correlates to achievement on tests, SES status and the student's mother's educational attainment.  This then created a backlash from schools working with students in poverty.  The ranking of districts was seen by educators as a punishment, not as a method for improving education.  

Third, once districts or individual schools received negative distinctions such as Warning or School Improvement a greater focusing on the test occurred.  Not only did the test become the curriculum in the classroom, but other classes (cuch as Art, Physical Education, Foreign Languages) went by the wayside to double the time spent in English, Reading and Mathematics classes.  Simply put, the more negative publicity and accountability occurred, the more schools focused on one thing - The TEST.  Frankly, in most schools in Pennsylvania, during the month or two before the PSSA exam, all education stops and students work exclusively on practicing to take the test.  

2005 - 2014 Pennsylvania Department of Education
Educators at low-SES schools demanded a value-added measure.  Basically, they were saying that they should be evaluated on how much their students improved, rather than on hitting some arbitrary benchmark.  The Pennsylvania Department of Education agreed and created PVAAS (Pennsylvania Value Added Assessment System). This program took the students' PSSA scores and looked for individual growth from one year to a next.  This would provide a measure of the quality of the teacher and the school.  However, the federal government did not approve PVAAS as a valid measure for NCLB.  Thus this system was created and continues to be reported, but it carries little weight.  

The evolution of testing in Pennsylvania has moved from the PSSA to the Keystone Exams (in high school) and the NCLB has changed somewhat in the last year. However, the use of standardized tests to rank school districts, evaluate teacher performance and evaluate administrators continues. So let's look at our initial questions. 

When did testing take over the lives of educators and their students?  I would suggest this occurred the first time that test results were published in the newspaper.  In Pennsylvania this was around 1984.  In the United States this was in 2001.

Why did it happen? Legislators responded to what they considered to be a crisis.  The Nation at Risk report in 1983 had a profound effect on what was expected of our educational system. Educators were slow to respond to this crisis.  This left a vacuum for others to take up the cause.  Unfortunately, when politicians and the media take up the cause of education, they tend to take a punitive approach to the problem.  If you don't comply or create the desired results they will punish you in the public eye.

Has it helped or hurt?  Obviously this is a much harder question to answer.  In past posts I've talked about how the world has changed since 1983.  Steel mills are gone, the workplace demands educated workers; high school and college are requirements.  High stakes basic skills tests produce what you would expect, basic skills.  Harder tests (like the PSSA) promote higher order thinking, but they are limited to two content areas.  Some schools got better at educating all students, some suffered due to the effects of poverty.

Are there any unintended consequences of testing systems?  Clearly, we have found that when a test is high-stakes (for the student, the teacher, the principal, the district) the curriculum gets limited to what is on the test. Increase the pressure and non-tested content areas get marginalized. We have also found that poverty and other at-risk factors mitigate success on these tests. Thus high stakes testing confirms the public's superficial opinions as to whether poor children can succeed.

I would suggest that our education institutions were presented with a challenge in 1983 with the Nation at Risk report.  The education community did a very bad job of it, not transitioning to a system that meets the needs of a 21st century economy;  and not creating schools that meet the needs of students who are at risk due to extreme poverty. Like any bureaucracy, educational institutions are not good at change. And I would suggest that the move from an industrial economy to an information economy demanded a complete rethinking of what and how education is structured. If educators don't adapt (and we didn't during this time frame) politicians will fill the vacuum with alternatives. The first was a skewed and punitive testing/accountability system. The second was the creation of Charter Schools.

So is testing a PUMP or a FILTER?  That's an easy one.  If we create narrow high-stakes tests and publish the results in the paper, than they act as a FILTER.  They vindicate the people who move to the suburbs, attend the best schools and look down at poor achieving schools.  More importantly they confirm to the poor, the disenfranchised, the students of color that they cannot succeed in the United States of America.

If, on the other hand, we create quality tests that inform students, teachers and parents on how students are doing, than we can adjust our curriculums, pedagogy and programs to succeed.  But this requires two very significant initiatives.  First, educators have to do a better job of informing the public of how our schools are doing. If we don't create a quality measure, than politicians will create a simple minded one.  Second, we have to commit ourselves to creating quality schools in the inner city and rural areas that meet the needs of all students.  That is the goal of this blog. And that is what it would mean to use testing as a PUMP.

The answer is G.

Students: Be the PUMP

Well now I've seen it all.  Recently I attended an A+ Schools event with a few hundred parents, students, educators and dignitaries entitled:

Students Have Spoken: Will You Listen? 

School Works Results 2013-14.  

In my 35 years in education I've never seen a group of students lecturing the adults as to what is needed in our schools.  The students were bright, articulate, much better speakers than most adults and clear in their intent.  They stated their schools are not welcoming, encouraging or supportive.  And if you are in a school that has a majority of its students who are of color, in poverty or have special needs (aptly named "the most vulnerable schools"), than the school is less welcoming, less encouraging and less supportive.

That was their opinion.  The question was whether this was indeed the case. How did they get this information?  Some background will help.

A+ Schools is a non-profit independent Pittsburgh public school advocacy group.  "Since 2004, A+ has served as a community force advancing the highest educational achievement for every student in Pittsburgh Public Schools."  In particular, their focus is on educational equity, eliminating the achievement gap and helping all students have success upon graduation.  I would suggest they see the mission of public schools is to act as a PUMP, not a FILTER.  

The event I attended was a confluence of two A+ Schools initiatives, School Works and TeenBloc.  

"Launched in 2009, School Works is a community action research program sponsored by A+ Schools that uses teams of trained volunteers to interview school staff and collect data on staffing, training, coursework, support services, resources and learning opportunities for Pittsburgh students.  School Works is modeled after the successful Ready Schools Project conducted by D.C. Voice in Washington, D.C."

"TeenBloc (formerly known as Students Engaged in Leadership) is a coalition of student leaders and organizers in Pittsburgh’s high schools whose purpose is to raise the student voice and create positive change in Pittsburgh Public Schools."

In 2013 the TeenBloc leaders brought together over 80 student leaders from Pittsburgh high schools in a serie of workshops and focus groups.  This group developed a Student Bill of Rights (SBR) as a response to their collective concern with the state of their high schools.  

Pittsburgh Student Bill of Rights

1. Right to free expression
2. Right to participate in decisions that affect our education
3. Right to equitable academic resources
4. Right to a socially, emotionally, and physically safe and positive school climate
5. Right to inclusive teaching and learning environments in our classrooms
6. Right to be treated with respect and dignity by the school community
7. Right to effective teachers
8. Right to positive school disciplinary policies and practices
9. Right to equitable access to accelerated classes and academic counseling
10. Right to efficient transportation

The leaders at A+ Schools wanted to give student perceptions a voice, to identify practices and policies that could advance the Bill of Rights, and to bolster the demand for the SBR.  So they decided to use their 2013-14 School Works data collection for this purpose.  

Two methods of data collection occurred.  

First, 16 Teenbloc students administered  anonymous, volunteer 60 question surveys to over 500 11th graders representing all of the city high schools.  The population surveyed was demographically and geographically balanced.  The survey was developed by the TeenBloc students under the guidance of A+ School researchers.  

Second, 73 trained adult volunteers interviewed 26 staff members from the city high schools. The 45 minute interviews included 50 questions that elicited adult perspectives on issues addressed in the Student Bill of Rights.  

The School Works report is now available from A+ Schools.  The executive summary of the report states:

"The trends are troubling and point to large inequities in our high schools.  Students in our most vulnerable schools more often report violation of the basic rights embodied in the Student Bill of Rights.  And often, the adults in the building agree with student assessments of school climate."  

Frankly, the report is damning.  Consider this... 60 years since the Brown vs. Board of Education decision that outlawed "separate but equal" in education; 50 years since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; 44 years since the Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education decision that allowed busing as a method of integration; our children must create a bill of rights that asks the adults for safe supportive schools, good teachers, equitable resources, access to advanced classes and counseling.  During the event, using texting technology, the speakers were able to survey the audience as to which 2 of the 10 rights in the SBR were the most important.  By a large number, the two that were chosen were Right 4 pertaining to safe and supportive school climate and Right 7 pertaining to effective teachers. No surprise.  And frankly, not too much to ask.  

So let's return to yesterday's event. Where do the students go from here?  The students will present the results to the school board in May and the board will vote in June as to whether they will incorporate the SBR into the district's Student Code of Conduct. I'm guessing they will approve the change because it is politically correct.  How can you argue with safe, equitable, quality schools?  Then what will happen?  Nothing.  

The students spoke with passion and resolve.  The A+ Schools director and researcher spoke with commitment.  But here's the part that worried me. It was the non-parent adults in the room.  The dignitaries included current school board members who had long careers as educators in the Pittsburgh Public Schools, an ex-director of the NAACP, the news media, the district Superintendent.  There were directors of non-profits that work with the district. Members of the Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers, of Great Schools Pittsburgh and Yinzercation were in the audience.  They all say the right things, all swear to the need for equity, all believe that we just need to work harder to fix the current system. They all want more money and blame Harrisburg convinced that money will solve the problem. Money is not the issue. Culture is the issue.  The system is broke, not financially, spiritually.  And the dignitaries were in charge of our school system as it evolved into this monstrosity.  

What the students are asking for is a change in the culture of schools.  They are asking for a different education... taught by caring individuals who believe and act in a manner that helps all students achieve and who understand the culture of their students... a different Pittsburgh... a different America. In this blog, I'm not talking about a fix, I'm talking about creating new schools based on proven success in urban settings.  And I don't care who creates the good schools - the District, charters or privates.  Just like the students, I simply want good schools for all students.  

As I was leaving the event, a number of my students from City High came up to me.  We talked about how their schooling is going, their post high school plans and how much we missed each other.  We talked about the next steps for the Student Bill of Rights.  They were brimming with optimism and hope.  I pushed them to consider their next move after the SBR is passed. How can they engage more students?  How can they continue to point out inequities that are stopping them from achieving?  How can they apply more pressure for change?  They are the voice of the future.  I warned them not to trust the adults or what they say or promise. Trust the data and what they see with their own two eyes.  Their engagement in this process is one of the few honest, sincere initiatives that is occurring in Pittsburgh education.  Students, be the PUMP.