The Same Children Left Behind Act

The No Child Left Behind Act is gone. Last week it was replaced by the Every Student Succeeds Act. As such, Congress and the President signed off on a revised and reauthorized ESEA for 2015. School districts, labor unions, school boards and parents are thrilled.

"This law will usher in the most sweeping, positive changes to public education we've seen in two decades." (Randi Weingarten, President, American Federation of Teachers) 

“This new law is a well-deserved victory for our nation because the Every Student Succeeds Act will create greater opportunity for every student regardless of ZIP Code,” said NEA President Lily Eskelsen García. “Educators welcomed the end of No Child Left Behind and the beginning of a new era in public education in schools.”

"It's empowering us state and local decision-makers to develop our own system for school improvement," Pennsylvania's Education Secretary Pedro Rivera said. "It's creating more access to high-quality preschool programs. It's understanding that there's far too much of an onerous burden of testing on students and teachers. So it gives a little more flexibility to how we assess education and school districts across the state."

John Callahan, assistant executive director of the Pennsylvania School Boards Association, said the Pennsylvania Department of Education has already begun to implement some of the provisions seen in this “next generation of the bill.” “This is a huge bill,” he said Wednesday. “There’s a lot already that we do. But the bill acknowledges that there are other ways to measure school district and student success in the classroom than by testing.”

It is hard to find a public educator or a parent in America who is upset about the demise of No Child Left Behind.

So let me tell you what the new Every Student Succeeds Act will do. It will turn the clock back to 2000. That's it.

Let's put this new legislation into its historical context.

---

According to the tenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Public education is not a power delegated to the federal government. Thus it defaults to the individual states. Consequently, for much of the history of our republic, the federal government has had  little input into public education. This changed in 1954.

According to the fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The application of the 14th amendment (equal protection) in the Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, was the beginning of the federal government's involvement in public education. This court case looked at the issue of segregated schools (by race) and whether they offered "equal protection" under the law. Counter to the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson ruling where "separate but equal" was allowed in public accommodations, the court decided that "separate but equal" was not acceptable in public education. As a result of the opinion, the Court ordered the states to integrate their schools "with all deliberate speed." 

10 years after the Supreme Court decision, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. This historic legislation "prohibited discrimination in public places, provided for the integration of schools and other public facilities, and made employment discrimination illegal." It should be noted that in the period between the Brown v. Board ruling and the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 there was little or no effort to actually integrate public schools. America was not ready for integration.

Starting with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, our country, led by President Lyndon Johnson, entered a decade of progressive politics that addressed concerns pertaining to under served populations (i.e. blacks, women, disabled and the poor). In 1965 the federal government passed the first Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). This act created the Title I program providing federal funding to school districts with high levels of student poverty. Since 1965, Title I has provided federal dollars that were often spent on reading specialists, paraprofessionals and remedial materials for reading and mathematics. The ESEA is periodically reauthorized with changes and improvements, often based on the desires of the President and the Congress at the time.

2001 No Child Left Behind sign into law  

In the year 2000, George W. Bush was elected President of the United States. At that time, 46 years after the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court ruling, 36 years after the Civil Rights Act and 35 years after the first ESEA Act, our nation's public schools were still segregated and had substantial achievement gaps based on race and socio-economic status.

Upon taking office President Bush expressed his concerns about public education. He argued that the ESEA in general and Title I in particular were not terribly effective. By nearly any measure, poor, black and disabled populations lagged far behind their peers. The question President Bush (and Senator Ted Kennedy) raised was how could school districts be held accountable for using their Title I funds to raise achievement for all students.

Bush, working with Senator Kennedy, rewrote and passed the ESEA of 2001 entitled the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Bush and Kennedy felt the need to put teeth into the Title I program. For years the government spent billions of dollars supporting education for students in poverty, but the achievement gap barely budged. The 2001 version of the ESEA, entitled No Child Left Behind, demanded that every state, district and school test students in grades 3-8 and 11 in reading and mathematics, post their test results publicly and hold accountable school districts and states for eliminating the achievement gap (between blacks and whites, poor and rich). This was the start of the high stakes testing era.

Every state created its own assessment system and had it approved by the US Dept. of Education. These assessments consisted of a single criterion referenced multiple choice test given once a year in grade 3-8 and 11 in reading and mathematics. Every year a benchmark had to be reached in order to obtain "Adequate Yearly Progress" (AYP). The benchmark was the % of students who were Advanced or Proficient on the state test. The chart at the right shows the AYP benchmark that had to be achieved by a given year. As you can see the benchmarks in the first few years were low. It did not rise above 54% for both reading and math for 7 years (2008). It then rose sharply to 100% in 6 more years (2014). To reach AYP a district not only had to meet these benchmarks in aggregate, but they had to meet them within subgroups for race, socioeconomic status and special needs students (only if you had more than 40 students in the subgroup.)

NCLB was designed as an accountability measure, not as an educational or pedagogical intervention. The program was punitive in its approach. Schools and districts that did not achieve "Adequate Yearly Progress" would be placed in "warning". Every consecutive year a school did not attain AYP, they would head down the list into a more critical category. After 5-6 years if a school found they were in Corrective Action II, students would be allowed to attend a different district school that had better results (if such a school existed.) As one might imagine, the schools that were in Corrective Action worked with the poorest, most needy populations.

Let's compare and contrast two Allegheny County school districts that were at either end of the income spectrum.

2004 Rand Report

The graph to the left is from a Rand Report on the Pittsburgh Public School's (PPS) achievement on the state AYP exam (PSSA) for 2004. As you can see, less than half of Pittsburgh students achieved proficiency in Reading and in Mathematics in 2004. In aggregate PPS made AYP (see chart above.) However, they did not meet AYP as a district in any grade in either reading or math with the black, special needs or low SES cohort. At the time, over 60% of the Pittsburgh student body lived in poverty.

The following chart represents the Mt. Lebanon School District AYP information for the same year for Reading in grades 5, 8 and 11. This provides a clear contrast from the Pittsburgh Public Schools (or any other urban school district in PA). As you can see, over 86% of Mt. Lebanon students were proficient in reading and mathematics (separate chart). Clearly these were extremely high scores (in only the second year under NCLB.) Note that Mt. Lebanon had no black or hispanic students, and only 25 economically disadvantaged students (2%). Not only did Mt. Lebanon make AYP in 2004, their 2004 scores would qualify for AYP up to 2013.  

Mount Lebanon 2003-04 Report Card

This Pittsburgh - Mt. Lebanon comparison was a typical urban - suburban contrast. As you might imagine, during the first few years of NCLB, it was the Title I urban poor schools that did not attain AYP. They were the schools listed in the newspaper headlines. This confirmed the public's belief that the poorer districts in Pittsburgh (Wilkinsburg, Penn Hills, Woodland Hills, Mon-Valley Schools) were "bad schools". And the highest performing schools (correlating perfectly with income) proved that white suburban schools were "good schools".

Who were we kidding?  AYP - Adequate Yearly Progress was not a measure of school quality, teacher ability or student ability. Research on standardized testing and achievement gaps suggests that test scores are highly correlated with family income, living conditions and parent level of education.

Actually, Adequate Yearly Progress is a misnomer. It was not measuring progress from year to year. It was measuring the percentage of students in a school district who were proficient. Pennsylvania realized that it was unfair to evaluate schools and districts simply by the percentage of proficient students. The state petitioned the federal government to allow Pennsylvania to grade schools based on student progress from year to year. The states analysis would focus specifically on how much the school and its teachers improved student achievement from one year to another.

They were turned down by the U.S. Department of Education. Although Pennsylvania developed and used PVAAS (Pennsylvania Value-Added Assessment System) internally, the feds never allowed it for AYP. The point of using a Value Added model of assessment was to acknowledge that, based on many variables (external to school), all students do not start school at the same skill level. Thus testing systems that are used to evaluate schools should be measured based on growth (value added), not on achieving proficiency on a single test. Certainly, not in the elementary and middle school grades.

Ultimately, by using a single criterion referenced test score to measure AYP, the results were a self-fulfilling prophesy. From the start of NCLB in 2002 until 2012 AYP identified "good schools" (suburban, affluent) and "bad schools" (urban, poor). This appeared to confirm long term race and class based stereotypes.

But something happened in 2012 that shook everyone up. Middle and upper class suburban schools began to not make AYP. 

First, the top schools did not make AYP because of their special education students. Then, in 2013 and 2014, they did not make AYP because the benchmark was unrealistically high (over 90%). Now suburban schools began focusing on teaching to the test. Due to state fiscal problems attributed to pensions, taxes and an economic recession, state funding for public education was reduced. Lower revenues and narrowly focusing on test results hurt other areas of study. Cuts were made in the arts, physical education, foreign languages, sports and extracurricular activities. Suburban parents were up in arms. They demanded that their children be allowed to opt out of the test. They created advocacy groups calling for a stop to high stakes testing and ending national standards (Parents Against Common Core).

Since 2009, the Obama Administration had talked about a new ESEA, but could not interest Congress in this endeavor. Starting in 2012, with the middle class, suburban backlash against NCLB, something had to be done.

"in 2012, the Obama administration began offering flexibility to states regarding specific requirements of NCLB in exchange for rigorous and comprehensive state-developed plans designed to close achievement gaps, increase equity, improve the quality of instruction, and increase outcomes for all students. Thus far 42 states, DC and Puerto Rico have received flexibility from NCLB".(http://www.ed.gov/esea). 

The meaning of  "flexibility" is that waivers were given with respect to AYP as long as states implemented strict teacher evaluation protocols that were partially based on student achievement on these tests. Once again a punitive approach to school reform. This time they focused on teachers implying they were the problem.

It was becoming apparent that NCLB, a testing program founded on the belief that public accountability would ultimately force Title I schools to succeed with its students, was not working.

First, it made public the fact that a large number of schools working with poor and at-risk populations were not succeeding. These schools, that work with the most impoverished populations, looked terrible, especially in comparison to wealthier communities. This had a crushing effect on students, parents, teachers and administration who were part of these schools.

Second, NCLB provided no additional resources, expertise or suggestions as to how to improve public schools that were working with students who were poor and at-risk.

Third, low achievement in urban public schools opened the door to charter schools that were able to develop new models of education from scratch, without legacy systems like unions, school boards and out of date curricula. This also drew additional revenues and students away from the urban public schools.

Finally, once NCLB began to negatively effect white, middle/upper class families, it created a backlash against both federally dictated learning standards and high stakes testing.

What a mess. Everyone who mattered politically (whites, middle/upper classes, politicians, unions, school boards, progressives and conservatives) had it with the testing and the federal government's attempt at "education reform".

---

And that brings us to the new ESEA - the Every Student Succeeds Act. Here is a summary of what the Act puts in place. 

1. District/school evaluation is now strictly a state responsibility. Every state must continue to test students in reading and math in grades 3-8 and once in high schools. And test scores must still be broken out by school and by subgroup. However, each state may choose their own accountability system, benchmarks, standards, etc. The federal government has no role in school/district evaluation, testing or improvement other than to make sure the states are doing their job. However, there are no means for the feds to hold the states accountable (other than through the courts.)
   
2. Guidelines (suggestions) are made for school/district accountability systems. However, there is no recourse if states do not comply with these guidelines.
   
3. There is no role for the federal government in teacher evaluation.
   
4. States and districts will use locally developed interventions in the bottom 5% of schools. Also schools will be flagged where subgroups are chronically underachieving. There is no role for the federal government in these schools other than to provide Title I funds. And there is no clear process for what to do with a school that does not improve.
   
5. Concerns about equity are addressed via "preschool development grants" which has been reassigned to HUD, monies set aside in Title I to address the lowest performing 5% (up to 7% of the Title I budget) and the inclusion of previous School Improvement Grants into the overall Title I budget.  

This is what Title I and ESEA looked like in 2001 prior to NCLB. Schools remain segregated, the lowest achieving schools are urban, primarily black, poor and filled with special needs students. Title I dollars will go to these schools and be used for teaching aides, reading specialists and reading recovery programs. The states testing programs (which existed in Pennsylvania starting with TELLS in the early 1980's) will continue, but with much less accountability or downside. And education control is local.  

Not once during this maddening ordeal, starting with Title I in 1965 and leading through NCLB in 2001, has the federal government or individual states offered comprehensive financial support to poor underachieving schools for:

1. Social Workers, Nurses, Nutritionists, Counselors and Psychological Services to help students manage their mental, physical and emotional health as they navigate through poverty, violence and broken families;
2. Identifying, hiring and keeping High Quality Teachers and Administrators to work in poor, underachieving schools; 
3. Books, home libraries, technology and various learning materials to be provided to students, used in school and kept permanently in students homes;
4. Free post high school education;
5. Free Preschools;
6. Free Health Care for children;
7. Free year round schooling; and
8. Replicating quality, proven successful inner city public, charter or private schools.

We know what works with at-risk, poor, underachieving populations. But no one really wants to commit to children who are poor, disabled or of color. They don't vote, they don't have money, influence or power. They are refugees in America. And you know what we think about refugees. They are different and dangerous and not our problem.

Once the white suburban families, the middle class, the real Americans were negatively affected by NCLB, the federal government offered flexibility, waivers and alternatives to AYP. And within a few years, the program was shelved. Now we are back to local control and all is well in our world.  

Just one problem... the Same Children are Left Behind. Let's call it the SCLB Act. 

The Dirty Little Secret

Pennsylvania public schools opened this year around Labor Day. Thousands of public schools - elementary, middle and high schools - opened as the law dictates. They will be in session for a minimum of 180 days and a minimum of 990 hours.  

• 500 public school districts 
• 3287 public schools
• 1,771,395 public school students 
• 124,646 public school teachers 
• 162 charter schools 

(National Center for Education Statistics)

Just one problem. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is legally obligated to pass a balanced budget for the 2015 - 16 fiscal year (July 1 - June 30) by June 30th. It is November and Pennsylvania still does not have a budget. When the state does not have an approved budget, there is no state support for school districts, preschools and non-profit social service agencies.

Why can't the legislature pass a budget?

---

Governor Tom Wolf was elected in November of 2014.  He won a landslide election over Tom Corbett, the incumbent governor. Wolf, a Democrat, had 54.9% of the popular vote to Corbett's 45.1%. One can consider his victory a mandate. Wolf ran on the following issues (York Daily Record):

• Address the public employees pension debt;
• Raise the minimum wage;
• Lower the corporate net income tax while closing the "Delaware Loophole";
• Bring PA's job creation rate to the top of the rankings;
• Provide universal Pre-K access;
• Lower school property taxes;
• Enact 5% extraction tax on natural gas drilling;
• Expand Medicaid; and 
• Restore $1 billion in education cuts.

This is not a radical agenda.  It indicates a desire to support children and families (education, preschools, teacher pensions, Medicaid expansion). It also addresses tax reform at the corporate and local level. So what's the problem?

Politics, Money, Beliefs and the Dirty Little Secret. 

---

Politics (aka Power)

2014 PA Governor's Election

The infamous political wonk, James Carville, once stated "Pennsylvania is Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and Alabama in between."

What was he getting at? Basically the two major population centers in the state are overwhelmingly Democrat. Outside of those centers, there is a very large, rural area that is conservative, Republican, anti-tax and anti-government.

Note the New York Times map above. This shows how the state voted by district in the 2014 Governor's election. Since Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are the most populous areas of the state, they often determine statewide elections such as Governor or President. Pennsylvania voted for Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012 and elected Tom Wolf (D) Governor in 2014.

However when we elect our legislature by district, the opposite is true. Like the federal government, the Pennsylvania legislature has both a House of Representatives and a Senate.

The Pennsylvania House of Representatives has 203 members, elected for two-year terms from single member districts. Currently the House has 119 Republicans (59%) and 84 Democrats (41%).

The Pennsylvania Senate has 50 members who are elected for four-year terms by district. Currently the Senate has 30 Republicans (60%) and 20 Democrats (40%).

A Republican legislature and a Democrat Governor. That's called gridlock. This is nothing new for Pennsylvania.

Yet the new Governor, Tom Wolf, decided that he would take the legislature on and work for change. And the legislature decided to take the Governor on. Both sides dug in. During the budget impasse, the Republicans offered a stop-gap measure to fund the budget in the short term until agreement could be reached. The Governor vetoed the idea. He is attempting to hold the legislators accountable for the budget and is forcing the impasse.

Democrats (located mainly in urban areas) want:

• Better education funding (we have one of the most inequitable K-12 funding formulas in America, and the highest public university tuitions in America);
• Tax revenue from the fracking industry (at a rate that every other state currently has in place);
• Universal Pre-K and Improved Child Healthcare (the state currently ranks low on overall child well being);
• Tax reform: a move from local property taxes towards sales and income taxes that would create more equitable funding for education; and 
• Better healthcare for all by expanding Medicaid: the last Republican governor did not access available federal funds to expand coverage in the state.  

Republicans (located mainly in suburbs and rural areas) want to:

• Lower taxes - corporate, individual, property;
• Privatize the state run liquor industry (this has been a fight that has gone on for decades); and 
• Eliminate public service employee pensions (teachers and government workers).

Urban districts want services, rural districts want to be left alone. As Carville would say, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh want help educating their children and Alabama wants the government to bug out. 

Looking through the filter of politics our elected Legislature and Governor have a fundamental difference in philosophy, beliefs and experiences. And since the methodology for electing Executives (statewide) versus Representatives (district wide) are biased in different directions, we end up with gridlock. Thus nothing ever changes.   

---

Money and Core Beliefs

Let's look at two case studies that typify the issues in the current Pennsylvania's budget impasse.

The Democrats and Liquor Store Privatization

In Pennsylvania, you cannot buy beer, wine or liquor in a supermarket. You can only buy beer at beer distributors or bars. Wine and liquor must be bought at state owned liquor stores. For those who have traveled out of state you understand how bizarre this is. If you go to Maryland, you can buy beer and wine in grocery stores. You can buy liquor at any number of privately owned stores. You can go to a Total Wine store which is like a Costco for alcohol, get huge discounts and have an extraordinary selection. If you go to Virginia, you will find a hybrid of the PA and MD models, where you can buy wine and beer in supermarkets, but have to buy liquor in state owned ABC stores.  

So why does PA hang on to this antiquated model?  The Democrats argue that they make more money this way.  I've spent a lot of time looking into the PLCB (Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board) revenues and it appears they do. Between liquor taxes, sales tax and profit the PLCB puts $500,000,000 into the state budget which is about three times as much as VA or MD. Note however, that the total Pennsylvania budget is $84 billion, thus liquor revenue represents less than 1% of the budget. 

After the issue of money, the second concern is one pertaining to labor unions and state workers. There are over 5000 people that are employed by the PLCB. They are unionized. Thus they represent a substantial lobby that appeals to the Democrats (who tend to be pro-union). Their union spent over $1 million in 2014 on advertising, lobbying and campaign contributions to stop the privatizing of the PA liquor system.  

As one can guess, the Republicans want the PLCB to become a free market enterprise, to get rid of the unions, the state employees and the pensions they earn. The problem is that the Republicans will not suggest a way to replace the loss of income if the stores are privatized.  

The bottom line is that the Democrats in Pennsylvania are for the state liquor system because it generates revenue and it supports a 5000 person workforce at a living wage. The PLCB system began after Prohibition in 1933. It represents a modern trend of state governments to use "sin taxes" to balance budgets. The taxing of liquor, marijuana (Colorado), gambling, lotteries, prostitution (Nevada) and cigarettes have become substantial revenue sources for states. In some cases, the states go into the business, as they have in liquor and lotteries in Pennsylvania. In other cases they just tax them at high rates.  

I would suggest that the Democrats are not wedded to the PLCB, but they are desperate for the revenue it generates. They want to apply this revenue to education, healthcare, the elderly, PreK access, etc. And the Republican's want to close it down. This is about money... and a belief as to government's place in our society. Thus it is part of the budget discussion.

The Republicans and Public Employee Pensions

I wrote about this in a blogpost entitled 2001 - The Beginning of the End. The Republicans in the legislature want to dismantle the defined benefit pension program for state and public school employees and move new employees to a defined contribution program (401K). (Note. In the spirit of full disclosure, I worked for 35 years in public education and am a retired educator who receives a pension from PSERS.)

PSERS (Public School Employees Retirement System) began in 1917 when the state became seriously involved in creating a public education system for all students. The goal of PSERS and SERS (State Employees Retirement System) was to provide a pension for those people who serve in the public sector. This type of pension is common for teachers, judges, state police, veterans, legislators, government workers and anyone who works for a non-profit government entity.  

The tension regarding public employees in general and pensions in particular pertains to employee quality and limited financial resources.  

Citizens expect government workers, particularly in education, justice, public safety, administration and finance to be of a high quality. They are entrusted with the various enterprises that government engages in - education, public safety, roads, infrastructure and regulation of industry - on the public behalf. They should be well educated, experienced and professional in the way they conduct business.  

Workers in the public domain are paid through taxes collected from citizens. Without taxes, there would be no public services. However, since taxes are collected centrally and are deducted from everyones pay, they effect individual and family disposable income. Thus there is an inherent tension between the value of public services and the cost of public services. Public employees are compensated below market value for their level of education, certification and expertise relative to their counterparts in the private sector. The concept of a defined benefit pension was put in place as an incentive to draw quality professionals to a lifetime of public service.  

I believe it is safe to say that in social democracies such as those in Scandinavia, it is a shared value of most citizens to pay taxes for these shared expenses.  I believe it is also fair to say that at this time in the United States, it is a shared value of many citizens that whatever government does would be accomplished more efficiently in the private sector. Socialism versus Capitalism. Democrats versus Republicans.  

As I reported in the blogpost mentioned above, PSERS and SERS were funded at the 125% level in 2000. The pension fund had worked perfectly for 80 years. In 2001, a Republican governor and Republican legislature changed the pension law. They increased the benefit for retirees and decreased the state contribution to the fund. This goes against every best business practice, against every actuarial assumption and ethically was inappropriate. What they did was mortgage the future to cut taxes in the present. And that's exactly what happened. With the help of two stock market recessions, Governor Tom Ridge and the legislature ultimately bankrupted the pension. Today it is funded at the 59% level. And it is costing both local school districts and the state huge amounts of money to make it solvent. This had nothing to do with employees, workers or their unions. The blame can be placed directly on elected officials, Republican officials.  

Now they want to eliminate the pension entirely. They are being accused of wanting to dismantle public education in the process. This is why the pension discussion is a big part of the current budget impasse. As stated above this is about money... and differing beliefs about government's place in our society. 

---

The Dirty Little Secret

So the budget impasse is going into its fifth month. And I am suggesting this is about money, power and very different beliefs about the purpose of government. They battle, posture, argue and diminish our belief in government. And they get nowhere.  This we know.  

It's the Dirty Little Secret that many people don't know... or won't acknowledge.

Here are some excerpts from an article in the Associated Press - Woe spreads in Pennsylvania's 4-month budget standoff.

State-subsidized pre-kindergarten programs are shutting down, domestic violence shelters are closing their doors and Pennsylvania's school districts are begging for more time to pay their bills — all because of a four-month budget stalemate that shows no signs of ending. 

County governments and local school boards waiting on billions in state aid are burning through loans and emptying reserves. Some social services organizations are shuttering programs and laying off hundreds of workers who care for the state's most vulnerable populations.

Two shelters for domestic violence victims closed their doors to new arrivals Friday, citing the lack of state aid. Last Monday, a woman in a shelter for domestic violence survivors tried to kill herself after she missed an appointment with a therapist. The shelter had halted its transportation services to save gas money.

A state-subsidized pre-K program at Riverview Children's Center in the Pittsburgh suburb of Verona closed down, too...  

A Pittsburgh-area school district that is one of Pennsylvania's poorest, McKeesport, has left teaching positions unfilled, ballooning elementary class sizes, and canceled tutoring and some high school electives. Bigger cuts — athletics and pre-K — may be in store, Superintendent Rula Skezas said. 

Schools, shelters, Pre-K programs, mental health facilities, etc. are not getting their usual state subsidies.

Under a 2009 court ruling, state employees can be paid and kept on the job, meaning that no state functions — such as prisons, highway patrols, state parks or driver license centers — are shut down, although money for expenses from travel to toilet paper is scarce and utilities and other contractors are going unpaid. 

Other provisions in federal or state law allow Medicaid, unemployment compensation and debt payments to be made.

Yet the government is still functioning.  Governors, Representatives, judges, administrators, managers and workers are all getting paid. State government activities are going on as usual. Taxes are collected and expenditures are made. It's just kids, schools and non-profit agencies that help the less fortunate that receive no money. Read that last sentence again.

But it's worse than we think. Is it all schools?

Remember that school district revenues come from five main sources: local property taxes, state funding, federal funding, other financing (loans or grants) and the fund balance.  Let's look at two districts at either end of the spectrum - Fox Chapel and Wilkinsburg.

In Fox Chapel, local property taxes generate 76.2% of the total budget, 
state revenues are 14.89% and the fund balance is $6.7 million.

In Wilkinsburg, local property taxes generate 50% of the total budget, 
state revenues are 40% and the fund balance is $0.

The effect of the impasse on School Districts is not equal.  

• Fox Chapel gets 14.89% of its revenue from the state and has a $6 million dollar fund balance to access during the impasse.  

• Wilkinsburg gets 40% of its revenue from the state and has no fund balance to access during the impasse. 

This is typical for poor districts with high poverty. In Allegheny County this would include the Pittsburgh Public Schools, Clairton SD, McKeesport SD, Sto-Rox SD, Penn Hills SD and Woodland Hills SD. Poorer school districts must obtain bank loans to meet payroll and stay open. They close programs. They pay loan interest to the banks. And they stop making their payments to public Charter Schools. 

"With the state budget impasse heading into its third month, at least 17 school districts and two intermediate units have had to borrow $346 million to keep operating, Pennsylvania Auditor General Eugene DePasquale said Tuesday."

So the poorer districts have larger class sizes, are not hiring to fill empty positions and eliminate programming, field trips, etc. The wealthier schools are less reliant on state funding and have their fund balance to cover the gap until the budget is passed.

Pennsylvania's spending during budget impasse hits $27 billion

The Dirty Little Secret... When the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania does not have a budget, everyone continues to get paid and served except for poor children, battered women, preschool students, those with mental health needs and any person who has no voice in Harrisburg.

Not to worry though. The Legislature and Governor will soon pass a budget... when the middle class white school districts start to run out of money. You can bet on it.

Happy Thanksgiving...

Trust is a Hard Commodity to Come By

Last week, the Wilkinsburg Board of Education voted to close their Middle and High School programs and send their students to Westinghouse 6-12 in Pittsburgh. The Pittsburgh School Board voted to accept these students as well. This is the beginning of the Wilkinsburg - Pittsburgh School Partnership.

Ed Donovan, Wilkinsburg School Board President, spoke on behalf of the district. Mr. Donovan made it clear that we are in the beginning phase of the Wilkinsburg-Pittsburgh Partnership. There is much work to be done. The District has not constructed a financial model as to how this partnership will effect local revenues, expenditures and property taxes. We are not sure how the actual move of the students will work. Mr. Donovan was not able to provide details to the community on the curriculum, or support services or transportation. He asked the community to work with the board to make this happen, but he has little to offer in the form of details. "We're just in the planning phase." 

After 50 years of mismanagement, poor leadership and, at times, outright crime, we are being asked to trust the school board; to believe in and support its efforts as the district sends our children to another district to get educated.

Trust is a hard commodity to come by in Wilkinsburg.

---

Last week the Washington Post published an article on the plight of Wilkinsburg schools.

"In a disadvantaged district, a parable of contemporary American schooling"

The author of the article, Emma Brown, visited Pittsburgh for a few days and took a deep dive into both Wilkinsburg and Westinghouse high schools. Unlike the local media, Ms. Brown spent many hours learning about this situation from all perspectives.

Imagine... a reporter visited both schools and spoke with the people who are deeply invested in this Wilkinsburg/Pittsburgh Partnership. Ms. Brown attended the parent/student meeting at Westinghouse. She talked with students. She talked with parents. She talked with teachers. She talked with both districts' principals and superintendents. And she talked to the President of the Wilkinsburg School Board. Her article speaks volumes about our current situation.

There is a deep sadness in the article that taps into the soul of Wilkinsburg... and into the soul of Westinghouse High School. Ms. Brown points out that there still remains a pride of days gone by in both schools. The current students are tired of being told they're no good. They know their schools were once at the top of the heap. The students are begging for a better education, and they fear that this will be another plan the adults put into place that doesn't work.

To their credit, members of both school boards have visited the schools, attended each other's board meetings and are trying as hard as they can to address the current problems.

Here are a few telling quotes from the Washington Post article.

“We’re doing our duty to get the best education that we can possibly afford for them,” (Board President) Donovan said. “This is the right thing for us to do. This is the only thing for us to do.”

“We think we can build something special for kids,” Pittsburgh Public Schools Superintendent Linda Lane said in an interview. 

Zwieryznski (Westinghouse Principal) who is relentlessly optimistic about prospects for the merged school, nevertheless shares the concern about disrupting fragile progress at Westinghouse. “Do I think it’s the best-case scenario? Absolutely not. I can’t lie. We didn’t stabilize Westinghouse yet; we’re still stabilizing it,” she said. 

“If you were to ask everyone honestly if this is the best academic solution for kids, they would tell you no,” said state Rep. Jake Wheatley (D-Allegheny), whose district includes much of Pittsburgh. 

“I just want to know that they’ve got real books here, because you all don’t,” said Benetta Blackwell, the mother of two Wilkinsburg students. “And do they get homework? Because you all don’t.”

"This is the only thing for us to do." That is what the Wilkinsburg School Board has come to believe.

I attended Wilkinsburg's school board meetings this month. The media was shocked at how few citizens actually participated in these meetings. Where were all the disgruntled families? Where were the parents, the leaders, the students? The fact that they weren't at the meeting spoke volumes. They have given up. They trust no one. They expect the worst. And that is what they get.

I have blogged on the fate of Wilkinsburg for a number of years. My stream of consciousness often grapples with what the underlying strategy is, the hidden agenda. Why is Pittsburgh doing this, especially for the below market rate of $8,000 per student. Is this a step towards a merger? Is the district looking for more students and revenue to help mitigate the ever decreasing student population?

After reading the Post article, talking with folks at the board meetings and reading the local newspapers, I think the answer is rather simple. This Partnership comes out of the best intentions of both school boards. The Pittsburgh Board and senior leadership are trying to help Wilkinsburg and its students out. And the Wilkinsburg Board and senior leadership is out of money and ideas as to what to do and are seeking another district's help. Pittsburgh is doing what they have experience doing... trying to help kids. I believe that everyone's hopes, desires and intentions are sincere and caring. But hopes, desires and intention are not enough to create success in such a complex endeavor. Sadly, Pittsburgh has demonstrated little or no success with populations as needy, at risk and abused as the children living in Homewood and Wilkinsburg.

Concepts such as a district or borough merger, or a charter school or a Project XQ school, are far beyond the imagination or expertise of the existing leaders. Any of these options would entail accepting our failures and looking for an entirely new paradigm. It would mean that both districts would have to step outside of the traditional Western Pennsylvania mentality, step out of their comfort zone and look at others who have been successful in this situation.

So they are doing what they can do. I respect them for their sincerity. I believe they want to help our students. But this is too little, too late and far too naive.

---

Before I end this blogpost, I want to look at one other aspect of the Washington Post article. At the end of the article in the Washington Post there were two comments from readers.

Comment One: This is an issue of structure - not funding. If Pennsylvania school districts were county-based rather than having over a dozen districts within a single county, the cost per pupil would be significantly lower and you would have less disparity between high and low income neighborhoods.

This first comment points out the inequities of funding based on Pennsylvania's local school district model versus Maryland's county model. Clearly county control of schools creates both economies of scale and gets closer to funding in a more equitable fashion.  Although the comment is correct regarding funding, this would not solve the problems we are having in Wilkinsburg... or Westinghouse.  If money was the sole problem, Wilkinsburg and Westinghouse would have solved the problem 40 years ago. Frankly, they both spend much more money per student than the average high school in Pennsylvania.

Comment Two: To paraphrase James Carville and Bill Clinton, "It's the students, stupid"! There is obviously something about the students who attend these two schools that are causing the low test scores and the chaotic classes. It's not the teachers, the curriculum, the facilities, or the support services -- at least, there's no evidence that the teachers, curriculum, facilities, or support services at these two schools are significantly inferior to the teachers, curriculum, facilities, or support services at the mostly-white, higher-test-scoring nearby Pittsburgh school.

What is the writer of this comment saying? He's blaming the students. He blames our children for being born black and poor. And he assumes that these two attributes have everything to do with why they are not learning. The hatred and stupidity of this comment is blinding. But it is an important comment to reckon with. Because it gets to the deep racism and lack of concern about the poor underclass in this country. It sends a message to all that, in America, you are on your own.  And if you are one of the unfortunate children to have been born into a difficult life, a life filled with poverty and violence, you should quit complaining and get your life together.

As I've stated before in this blog, "We are a simple minded, mean-spirited people."

Here is the comment I would add to the article in the Washington Post.

Pittsburgh leads the nation in segregation, black poverty, black unemployment and black healthcare. We don't care about black people. We don't care about poor people. And we will not change to meet their needs; even if those needs were created by centuries of abuse, hatred, violence and death. 

There are exemplary schools across the nation that succeed with students in situations similar to Wilkinsburg and Westinghouse. The fact that neither Pittsburgh nor Wilkinsburg school leaders are willing to tap into these exemplary schools or their models is a testimony to ignorance, obstinance and a state of denial that can only be attributed to the deepest neuroses and pathology.   

---

Trust is a hard commodity to find in Wilkinsburg.

It doesn't come easy to families who live in poverty. It is not something to build on when you don't have a job, don't have healthcare and move from rental unit to rental unit. It does not exist in a town where nearly everyone lives on a street with condemned homes. It is not a word in the vocabulary of people who live far from grocery stores, bakeries, movie theaters and restaurants.  Who could we possibly trust? Not our leaders, not the police, not the educators, no one. We are left to our own fate.

Wilkinsburg Report

Partnership Update

The Pittsburgh Public Schools/Wilkinsburg School District Partnership is moving forward. An announcement (to the right) inviting people to a joint community meeting is posted on Wilkinsburg's District web site. In the weeks following the meeting, both school boards are scheduled to vote on the terms of the partnership. Wilkinsburg's board will have an open planning session on Oct. 20 at 7:00 PM in the Board Building and will vote on the proposal on Oct. 27 at the same time and place. I hope that anyone interested in this issue will attend these meetings. I will be there.

Two news articles this past week provided further details about the proposal.  The first explained the Wilkinsburg Education Associations point of view with respect to moving the students to Westinghouse.

"Barbara Bell, retired Wilkinsburg teacher and chief negotiator for the Wilkinsburg Education Association, said contract language permits furloughs only as a result of enrollment declines. The contract, which expired June 30, states the number of furloughs cannot exceed the percentage of decline in total school district enrollment from the previous school year... 'Anything beyond the enrollment declines is a contract violation,' Ms. Bell said. 'We will go to arbitration over that if we have to.'" (PG - Oct. 1, 2015)

Basically, the WEA is making sure the District follows the contract and saves as many teaching positions as possible. The article also quotes the current union president, Mike Evans.

"I think they’re being disingenuous in saying they’re trying to offer the Wilkinsburg students a better opportunity,” Mr. Evans said. “It’s a lateral move. Westinghouse is one of the lowest-performing high schools in the city of Pittsburgh. If we were to invest as much time and resources and effort into rebuilding the middle and high school as we did in this plan to get rid of our students, we would be on our way.”

I agree that this is a lateral move.  But I'm afraid Mr. Evans comment is disingenuous as well.  The WEA was a major partner in helping this district to become the worst in the state over a 40 year period. It's a little late to point fingers.

PG - Sept. 29, 2015

The second article provided insight into the revenue side of the plan.  There were two key issues in this article that I'd like to point out.

The first is the $8,000 first year tuition for each Wilkinsburg student. This is incredibly low... far below market rate. Dr. Lane states that the partnership is revenue neutral for both districts. During the 2014-15 school year, the tuition rate that Wilkinsburg paid to charter schools was $14,557 for regular education students and $34,206 for special education students. Any way you look at this proposal, it is generous on the part of the Pittsburgh Public Schools to accept $8,000 per student. I can only conjecture as to why they are accepting such a low tuition rate.

1. It is out of the goodness of Pittsburgh's heart that they are reaching out to Wilkinsburg.

2. By sending the students to Westinghouse, which currently has many empty classrooms and small class sizes, the additional cost per student is much less than typical. Thus the actual cost of educating these additional students may actually be close to the $8000 tuition rate.

3. Pittsburgh is looking to add students any way possible to make up for the continued loss of students over the last 40 years.  Combining small, poor ring suburbs with PPS makes great sense from an efficiency perspective.  However, mergers have a long history of being opposed in Pennsylvania.  This would be a large political undertaking.

4. This "partnership" is really just one more step to pressure for an overall merger of Wilkinsburg and Pittsburgh.  I'm guessing this is the most likely reason for moving forward.  

The second issue the article raised was in a quote by one of Pittsburgh's Board Members:

“Having students come into another school district en masse and say that our kids have this but these children have this, I have a problem with that,” board director Regina Holley said during Tuesday’s meeting. “They’re not getting full access to everything the school district has to offer. I think they should be allowed to apply just as any PPS student would apply.”

Basically, Dr. Holley is suggesting that the Wilkinsburg students should be allowed to apply to Pittsburgh Magnets. They should be given equal access to all PPS programs. It's reassuring to hear someone from PPS advocating for Wilkinsburg students. Access to all PPS programs is one of the last components of the plan that will have to be worked out one way or the other. Equal access would make the partnership much more palatable from a Wilkinsburg perspective.

However, from a Pittsburgh resident's perspective, there may be concerns. PPS is taking in over 200 low achieving students from Wilkinsburg, the tuition is far below market rates and it is possible that Wilkinsburg students will get access to all PPS resources such as magnet schools.  I can't believe Pittsburgh voters will be happy about that. If this is a step toward a merger, the mayor, county executive and state legislators should be involved in this discussion.  I do not believe that is the case. So frankly, I still can't figure this out from Pittsburgh's perspective.

What I know for a fact is that the media is paying little attention to the needs of our children. This is all about logistics, revenue, rights of teachers, school boards and property values. Although Westinghouse is a superior facility that offers sports and upper level classes that Wilkinsburg does not have, it is a terrible institution from an academic perspective.  Hard to know the value added in this exercise, at least from the students' perspective.

Survey Update

You may remember that in my last blogpost, I challenged readers to see if there was any interest in getting involved in the Wilkinsburg education situation.  In particular, I promoted the idea of either getting an outside charter to apply to run the district schools or using the Project XQ program to design a 21st Century break the mold high school.  I asked interested parties to take a survey and offer their help.

Here are the survey results:

• 9 people took the survey.  
• 6 were Non-Profit Leaders.  2 of these previously worked for the Pittsburgh Public Schools and 3 are education advocates in Pittsburgh.  
• 2 were school administrators (Executive Director and Principal). One was from a private school and one was from the Pittsburgh Public Schools.  
• 1 was a teacher from a charter school in Pittsburgh.  
• Only 1 of the survey takers works in Wilkinsburg Borough. 
• All but one were willing to work 5 or more hours a month to try and come up with a solution to the Wilkinsburg Education problem.  
• The group was relatively consistent about their initial impression of how to move forward.
• No one wanted to send the students to Westinghouse HS.
• 6 out of 9 suggested sending an RFP out to quality Charter School groups to try and engage them to open a charter middle/high school in Wilkinsburg.  
• 1 out of 9 suggested merging the two school districts.
• 2 out of 9 (and a third said they might be interested) recommended moving on the Project XQ proposal to create a model 21st century middle/high school in Wilkinsburg.  

First, thank you to everyone who responded to this outreach effort. Second, I will be following up with an email to these people to discuss next steps.  I was disappointed, but not shocked, that no Wilkinsburg residents responded. Nor was I shocked that most of the people who responded were in the non-profit sector. These folks are quite aware of the devastation Wilkinsburg students experience, but have little or no power in either district. It is to their credit that they would volunteer to seek a progressive education alternative for Wilkinsburg students.  

"The Community Must Take Control of Their Schools"

I was also emailed by an individual who has had much experience with Wilkinsburg and has since moved away. He suggests the problem is outsiders, poor management and and lack of due diligence when hiring for Superintendent and other leadership positions. He states clearly that "the community must take control of their schools." He also stated that "The Blackridge and Regent Square folks don't understand sending the kids to Westinghouse is hurting the community."

The quote about Blackridge and Regent Square gets to the core of this discussion. Wilkinsburg is a legal entity called a borough. But, I would hesitate to call it a community. It includes three wards, 3-6 distinct neighborhoods and various constituencies that have little in common. Take a look at this link which contains a very accurate Wilkinsburg Map. The borough is small at 2.3 square miles. There are 5,615 Caucasians living in Wilkinsburg (29.3%). There are 12,768 African-Americans living in Wilkinsburg (66.5%). There are 14 churches in Wilkinsburg.


There are white middle class enclaves in each Ward. In the 1st Ward a middle class population lives in Blackridge, a quiet residential community that is shared by Wilkinsburg, Churchill and Penn Hills. In the 2nd Ward a middle class population (black and white) lives in the Beacon Hill neighborhood. There is also a small white middle class enclave in the quiet area bordering Churchill around Scenery Road. In the 3rd Ward, there is a middle class white population that lives in Regent Square (which also contains parts of Pittsburgh, Edgewood and Swissvale.) 

Each ward has all black areas.  And each ward has mixed race and low income areas. It really is a hodge-podge. Most of the residents who live in poorer areas of town are renting.  Many of the residents who live in middle class areas are home owners. 2.3 square miles. 19,000 citizens. About 19 percent of its houses and 40 percent of its shops are vacant.

There are a large number of different "areas" which are ill defined; although you somehow know when you've crossed from one area to another. It's usually a railroad bridge, or Penn Ave. or a steep hill. Wilkinsburg is not a community... just a group of small neighborhoods without any real sense of itself.   

The quote above "The Blackridge and Regent Square folks don't understand sending the kids to Westinghouse is hurting the community" can be translated as follows... A white man is stating that the white middle class families in these two areas don't care what happens to the black kids in the Borough. They are just worried about their property values.  

This community can't take control of its schools, because it is not a community.  It is a group of homes beautiful and decrepit, scattered about, abandoned, rented and owned.  It's almost as if the people don't exist.  

Look in the last collage at the photo in the top left corner.  That is a statue of Abraham Lincoln that greets people as they enter the borough from the parkway.  A few years after I moved into the Borough, in 1982, the statue was stolen. Late one evening a couple who had been drinking sawed off the copper statue and took it. The statue was created in 1916 with funding through a penny collection by the Borough's elementary school children.  Imagine, someone stole the statue of "Honest Abe". 1982 was when urban renewal and forced integration initiated a flight to the suburbs that decimated this borough. 

Ultimately the statue was found, repaired and put back into place.  I believe that when they stole "Abe the Emancipator", they also stole the soul of this borough.  We recovered the statue, but our soul remains MIA.

Wilkinsburg Redux - What do you think we should do?

The phone rings...

"Hello, Rick... are you following what is going on in Wilkinsburg? What can we do? Who are the people in Wilkinsburg who are upset and want to do something about the current situation? Moving the students to Westinghouse is not the answer. What is going on? This is terrible. What do you think we should do?"

What do you think we should do? I have written extensively on this topic.

The Principal's Office: What to do about Wilkinsburg - Part 1?  Mar 07, 2014
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 ...

The Principal's Office: What to do about Wilkinsburg - Part 2?  Mar 14, 2014
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 ...

The Principal's Office: What to do about Wilkinsburg - Part 3?  Jun 13, 2014
In two previous blogposts, I wrote about the state of education in Wilkinsburg, PA. The first was a background piece on the town and the second proposed strategies for providing our youth with a quality education. The premise ...

The Principal's Office: Giving Up... or Starting Anew  May 15, 2015
Wilkinsburg schools made the news recently. They are considering dissolving their Middle and High School programs and paying for their students to attend schools in neighboring districts. This harkens back to the closing of ...

The people who are calling me are responding to the current headlines about the Wilkinsburg - Pittsburgh proposal for educating Wilkinsburg students.  So let's dive in one more time and try to answer the question - What should we do?

There are three key components to the proposal.

Component One. "under the plan, more than 200 secondary students from Wilkinsburg would be assigned to Westinghouse 6-12 in Homewood on a tuition basis"  

This is straightforward. Wilkinsburg grade 7-12 students would attend Westinghouse 6-12. Pittsburgh is paid tuition for each student (probably between $10,000 - $15,000/student/year.) In essence, Wilkinsburg is contracting with an outside vendor (PPS) to provide middle and high school services for its students. Wilkinsburg initially reached out to the Penn Hills and Woodland Hills School Districts to consider this proposal. Both groups immediately said they were not interested. On the other hand, Pittsburgh immediately engaged with the proposal and it is under serious consideration. Both District School Boards are preparing to vote on the proposal at their October meetings.  

As in any business agreement, one would assume that both sides would benefit from the partnership. In this case, Pittsburgh would get about $3 million in annual revenue and Wilkinsburg would provide its students with an education at a superior facility with many additional resources.  On the surface it looks like a Win-Win.  Let's dig deeper. 

Here is a comparison of the two schools on their state test scores as published in the 2013-14 Pennsylvania School Performance Profile.

Only 1 out of 4 Westinghouse students are proficient or advanced in Reading, Math, Science or Writing. This is better than Wilkinsburg students where only 1 out of 10 are proficient or advanced. In either case, both schools rank in the bottom 1% of all high schools in the state. So the proposal recommends sending students who are experiencing little or no achievement to a nearby school that, in many respects, is quite similar from an academic achievement perspective.

There is an upside to sending the students to Westinghouse. They will attend a renovated building with new science labs, technology, library, gymnasium and advanced placement classes. They will attend a school with an athletic program, a marching band and a school musical. And they will attend a district with far greater resources than Wilkinsburg.

There is a downside to sending the students to Westinghouse. They will attend school in a segregated building. They will not achieve academically. And the people deeply embedded in the local communities fear the fights, the gang problems and the issues that will arise from mixing these two neighborhoods in one school.


Component 2. "Wilkinsburg students could enroll in the district's magnet schools based on availability after spots have been filled by qualifying PPS students."

Unfortunately, there is little or no availability in the District's Magnets. So basically Wilkinsburg students will be forced to attend the worst school in the District - Westinghouse. They won't get into magnets, they will not have access to Allderdice H.S., a higher achieving PPS high school that is close to Wilkinsburg, nor will they be eligible for the Pittsburgh Promise Scholarship fund.  So this is an empty option. Let's be clear, we are trading Wilkinsburg Middle/High School for Westinghouse Middle/High School.

A number of individuals close to the situation (State Representative, Jake Wheatley, A+ Schools executive director Carey Harris, Board Members from both Districts) share these academic concerns - Plan to send Wilkinsburg students to Pittsburgh Public Schools gets mixed reaction (Post-Gazette, 9/8/15). 

On the other hand, it should be noted that the Pennsylvania Secretary of Education and the Superintendent of the Pittsburgh Public Schools have signed onto this partnership as it is currently designed.

I believe that Superintendent Linda Lane and her cabinet have the absolute best interest and intentions as they enter this "partnership".

Pittsburgh deputy superintendent Donna Micheaux said the plan could serve as a model for struggling districts throughout the state. 

“I think it’s important that we focus on the real reason for this discussion,” Ms. Micheaux said. “As educators, we have a responsibility that all children, regardless of where they live, have access to a quality education. This is more than a technical issue, this is a humane issue with children at the forefront.” (P-G, 9/16/2015)

We all agree with this sentiment. The question at hand is whether the Wilkinsburg students will gain "access to a quality education."


Component 3. Also, the plan calls for the standardized test scores of Wilkinsburg students to be tracked separately from Pittsburgh students by the state board of education.

This is strange. Wilkinsburg will pay the Pittsburgh Public Schools to take its grade 7-12 students and educate them. But the Pittsburgh Public Schools and the State of Pennsylvania will not include the Wilkinsburg students' test scores in the Pittsburgh report to the state. The test scores of the Wilkinsburg students will be tracked and reported separately from those of the PPS students. From a state perspective this forces Wilkinsburg's School Board to understand that they are still legally responsible for the education of these students.

I still can 't figure this reasoning out.

Did Pittsburgh agree to this methodology because they are concerned that the test scores of the Wilkinsburg students will be low and will drag down Pittsburgh's already low scores?

Did Wilkinsburg agree to this so they maintain some pseudo-autonomy?

Are both sides concerned about how the Wilkinsburg students will do in this new setting and thus are hedging their bets?

By disaggregating the scores it calls into question exactly who is responsible for the Wilkinsburg students achievement. What if the students don't achieve at a higher level than they did at Wilkinsburg H.S.? Who is to blame?

---

So the deal is clear... considered a win-win. Wilkinsburg will no longer have to run a middle or high school program and their students will get access to more resources. Pittsburgh will get $3 million in revenue with little impact on their facilities or program. Dr. Lane states that the proposal is revenue neutral from Pittsburgh's perspective. Even the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette thinks its a great idea.  Maybe everyone is thinking that this is just another step that is necessary for Wilkinsburg to ultimately merge with Pittsburgh. If that is the case, do the necessary leg work and merge the schools. That would at least give our students equal access to all that PPS has to offer.

The only people who lose in this proposal are the people who have been losing for the last 40 years in Wilkinsburg. The only people no one gives a damn about. The children of Wilkinsburg: mainly black, mostly poor, many who are homeless (175 out of 2000) and most who don't have any hope.

They are discussing a partnership that is not a partnership, but a contractual relationship. They are moving students from bad to bad. On the School Digger website for 2013-2014, Wilkinsburg and Westinghouse are ranked 579 and 577 out of 580 respectively. The rankings are based on the students' test scores on Pennsylvania's Keystone and PSSA exams.

This is not a proposal about providing quality education for our students. It is a business deal where one town gets out of the business of education and another town takes the contract. This is the same as when Pittsburgh took over Wilkinsburg's trash removal and recycling. Wilkinsburg saves money, Pittsburgh receives money, and the trash is "removed." Only in this case our students are being removed/recycled - or should I say sold?

400 years since slavery began in the New World, 150 years since the Emancipation Proclamation, 60 years since Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme Court ruling and 35 years since the Pennsylvania State Human Relations Commission demanded integration of our schools - and yet in 2015 we are selling our students to the Pittsburgh Public Schools to obtain a segregated low achieving education. This is the best that these two districts and the state has to offer?

It is not acceptable. Both schools are terrible.

---

So here's what I suggest we do.

The Wilkinsburg School Board needs an alternative to the current PPS proposal. Without an alternative proposal they are left with no options. The options are limited because the Board chose to consider only public school districts that border Wilkinsburg. Hence, Pittsburgh, Penn Hills and Woodland Hills were the only districts approached. This makes sense from a logistical perspective, and probably from a financial perspective, but not from an educational one. It totally ignored two options that are available to the District.

The first option is to solicit proposals from quality charter schools that have a track record of excellence with students who live in poverty and are of color. This would allow the District to consider alternatives and judge them on the quality of their student achievement with a similar demographic, not on proximity.

If a quality organization with a successful track record submitted a K-12  or grade 7-12 state-of-the-art charter school proposal the Board would legally have to consider it. This would immediately force a discussion, requiring them to consider the possibilities and engage the community. And it would provide an opportunity to energize Wilkinsburg as a whole.

What charter schools might they consider approaching?

Mastery Charter Schools - Scott Gordon
Scholar Academy Charter Schools - Lars Beck
City Charter High School - Ron Sofo

These schools all have strong track records in Pennsylvania. They all could manage this project. And they all would succeed at changing the lives of our children and help our Borough. In this scenario these (and possibly other) charter school groups would be approached and asked to make a proposal to the District. Who would approach them? It could be the School District but it could also be a group of citizens who want quality education in Wilkinsburg. In this day and age it is simply wrong for the School Board to not investigate this option before moving forward. This option would provide the District with oversight, elimination of many of the barriers from moving forward and the ability to work with an organization that has a proven record of outstanding achievement with high poverty populations.


A second (more ambitious) option is to create our own model school and implement it as a charter. At the very time we dismantle our district and send our students away, there is an extraordinary opportunity to create a model school that helps put Wilkinsburg back on its feet.

Project XQ

New York Times, 9/14/15

Project XQ is an opportunity for a community to re-envision high school education that is relevant, driven by 21st century needs and succeeds with all students. "To start from scratch." Go to the website (http://xqsuperschool.org/) and review the concept.  The program was announced September 11 and has a planning period that ends with applications due February 1st and with 5-10 winners chosen in August, 2016. Winners will receive $5-10 million to open the school. Initial concepts are due to Project XQ by November 15th.

In this scenario, a group of talented educators, elected officials, community leaders, students and parents from Wilkinsburg would enter this competition and plan a 21st Century school in the process. We would need a group of people who are doers, not talkers. We would need a group of people with expertise in education and the workforce. And, we would need a group of people who will stop at nothing to help our children thrive. And if the proposal is not chosen by Project XQ, we would still have a plan in hand for moving Wilkinsburg schools forward.

The Wilkinsburg story is compelling. Great location, great housing stock, great history and a long spiral into hard times. Here is an opportunity to address one of the most important barriers to our moving forward.  And to saving our children's lives.

An initial concept is due to Project XQ by November 15th.

---

What I'm proposing is that it is time to put up or shut up. You know who you are.  You know what you can offer. It's time to make this happen.  I'm not a community organizer, but I'm an educator who helped create one of these quality schools. I know what works and I know what it takes. And I've lived in Wilkinsburg for 35 years. The question is whether there is anyone else out there who sees this as their life's work. Is there anyone who actually wants to see Wilkinsburg succeed and commit the effort to make it happen?  If there is, we can make this happen... if we have a team and a commitment.

Here's what I'm willing to do. I am willing to organize a group to work on either of these options. I am also willing to host meetings, facilitate conversations and build a team. I am willing to participate in the writing of the proposal. I'm willing to help get the school off the ground. And I'm willing to take an advisory or governance role if asked and if the project comes to fruition.

What I'm not willing to do is listen to whining, nonsense or stories about the good old days. I'm not willing to discuss all the reasons why this can't be done.  It's time to move forward. It's time to put up or shut up.

I have an online survey to fill out if you are interested in joining a Wilkinsburg Working Group (WWG) to find a solution to our education dilemma. The WWG will work towards finding a potential charter organization that will run a Grade 7-12 school in Wilkinsburg or it will submit a proposal for a 21st Century quality school model to Project XQ. If no one responds to the survey, or there is minimal interest in this idea, then we know where we stand. If we get a quality working group together that wants to solve this problem, we will move forward.  If you are interested in joining this effort, fill out the survey and pass the word.

You have until October 5 to complete the survey and commit your energies to the project.  I'll provide the readers of this blog (and the people who complete the survey) with a report on October 9.  The Wilkinsburg Board is allowing public comment on their partnership agreement with Pittsburgh at their Oct. 20 Planning Meeting. They will vote on the proposal October 27th. If we decide to move forward, it would be wise to notify the district of our intent.

John Lewis, the pioneer Civil Rights Freedom Rider, stated "if not us, then who? If not now, then when?"  Now is your chance.

I Want to Help Provide Quality Education In Wilkinsburg, PA

And please... if you're not interested in getting involved on a deep level, quit calling me and asking me what to do.