The Pittsburgh School Board

National Guard clear streets in Pittsburgh during race riot, 1968.

1968 was a tumultuous time in America. The war in Viet Nam, uprisings on college campuses, civil rights marches, riots in urban ghettos and the assassination of both Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King all contributed to a state of uncertainty and unrest. Locally, in terms of Pittsburgh public education, 1968 was a year of uncertainty and unrest as well.

Striking Pittsburgh teachers picket the Board of 

Education Building in Oakland, Feb. 9, 1968. 

In 1968, Pittsburgh public school teachers had their first labor strike which led to the Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers (PFT 400) obtaining the right to represent its teachers in collective bargaining with the District. Although teachers unions existed in Pennsylvania for most of the 20th century, it was not until 1970 that they were legally given the right (PA Act 195) to strike. This was followed by a 1971 PFT strike to obtain a new contract and a long and more difficult strike in 1975 with disagreements on salary, class size, job security, teaching schedules and numerous issues regarding working conditions. The 1975 strike went on for 56 days in the middle of the school year.  The teachers won.



Also in 1968, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) began pressuring the Pittsburgh school district to integrate its schools. This was 14 years after the Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme Court ruling and four years after the Federal Civil Rights legislation of 1964. The PHRC nagged the district for five years (to no avail) before they finally filed a suit in Commonwealth Court in 1973 to force the district to integrate their schools. In 1978, the court ruled that the district must integrate its schools by 1979.

So what does all this have to do with the Pittsburgh School Board?  Like any governmental entity, school boards are political institutions and subject to public pressure. The 1968 political unrest, both at a national and local level, began to influence the discussion about how the Pittsburgh School Board was chosen. The community wanted greater accountability in its school board members. And unlike most cities in America, the Pittsburgh School Board was appointed, not elected. Significant changes pertaining to the Board were discussed starting in 1968 and culminating in major changes in 1976. These changes occurred due to pressure brought by Pittsburgh leaders and neighborhoods with a desire to engage in school district politics.

This is the story of how the Pittsburgh School Board went from being an appointed board, to an elected board, to a balkanized board. And how recent elections are an indication that we are moving in a new direction that reflects a concern over the districts very survival.

---

The Age of Oversight, 1911 - 1976

In 1911, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania decided that the Pittsburgh School Board would be appointed by the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas. This was seen as a huge improvement to the original district plan which included many local school sub-boards that ran education in Pittsburgh's neighborhoods. A central school board would provide guidance, consistency and accountability for all city schools. By 1968, the only two school districts in Pennsylvania that had appointed school boards were Philadelphia (appointed by the Mayor) and Pittsburgh (appointed by the Court of Common Pleas.) Every other Pennsylvania school district elected their school boards.

In theory, an appointed school board provided school directors that had appropriate skills and expertise to lead the district. Often appointed boards consisted of highly educated professionals and leaders in the community. The system of court appointed Pittsburgh School Board Directors worked well enough for 50 years. However, the volatility of the 1960s, particularly with respect to labor and race, forced a rethinking of the school board makeup. Two key issues concerned the public.

Taxation without Representation: Since the board was appointed, they could not directly raise taxes to increase revenue. When the district needed additional funds, they had to appeal to the state legislature (elected officials) to increase Pittsburgh taxes. This added layer of political/legislative governance made managing the budget more difficult since the Pennsylvania legislature had to agree to the tax increases. This meant important Pittsburgh school district issues were resolved in Harrisburg. In 1968 this seemed paternalistic and far removed from the citizens of Pittsburgh.

School Board Director Qualifications: Pittsburgh's School Board directors were appointed by judges who were elected by the county (not just the citizens of Pittsburgh). Many of the judges did not live in Pittsburgh. Nor did they represent the demographics of Pittsburgh. They often appointed individuals who were leaders in the community or in business, but were far removed from Pittsburgh neighborhoods, especially those of color, ethnicity and working class residents. Or sometimes, the decisions were made in terms of local/neighborhood patronage. Either way, these decisions were made in a manner that was detached from the electorate. And detached from the needs of a quality education enterprise.

1968 Pittsburgh Press Editorial

With volatile issues of race and labor energizing the working classes of Pittsburgh, there was pressure to elect a local school board. Workers were skeptical about school directors who were not open to labor unions. Whites citizens were concerned about school directors who would follow the PHRC dictates to integrate the district. And black citizens did not trust white school directors who followed the wishes of the white community to not integrate schools. The population of Pittsburgh began to demand local control of their schools through an elected school board.

Between 1968 and 1976, various attempts were made to change the makeup of the school board.

• The 1968 Pittsburgh Press editorial above called for an elected school board. 
• In 1969 a Select Commission to study the Pittsburgh School Board recommended a hybrid 13 member board that consisted of 7 elected directors (from 7 districts) and 6 directors appointed by the mayor. The report was shelved.  
• In 1972 the League of Women Voters recommended a nominating panel that would provide the judges with candidates. They recommended term limits and balancing candidates socio-economically and geographically.   
• At the same time, in 1972, Max Homer, a state legislator, put forth a bill for an elected school board with 15 at-large members. 
• A compromise bill was passed in 1973, that would have a two year planning period, followed by a recommendation for the number of board members and how they would be allocated geographically. This would then be presented to the Pittsburgh citizens via a referendum they could vote on.  
• In 1975, Governor Shapp considered a bill that would call for an elected school board in which candidates could run under a political party endorsement (Democrat, Republican, Constitutional) and cross register if they wanted.  
• In 1975, the legislature finally passed the bill stating there would be 9 districts each represented by a district board member. The governor signed the bill.  
• In 1976, the Pittsburgh electorate overwhelmingly approved the elected school board plan.  

In 1977, an elected school board existed for the first time in Pittsburgh.

---

The Age of Leadership, 1980 - 1992

Relatively soon after Pittsburgh elected it's first non-appointed school board, the district hired Dr. Richard Wallace as Superintendent of the Pittsburgh Public Schools. Dr. Wallace had to address the issues of labor relations, eliminating the achievement gap between races, middle class flight to the suburbs and an elected (not appointed) school board. His stance was that of a professional educator who understood the mission, understood the politics and constraints of the time, and who had a model for a successful program for Pittsburgh schools. I will discuss three key initiatives that were part of Dr. Wallace's plan.

I. The Schenley High School Teacher Center 

Dr. Wallace felt that the success of the district was inextricably tied to the quality of the teaching corp. Thus it was imperative to help teachers improve at their craft, to develop a common language to discuss quality teaching and to make sure every teacher understood what it meant to be successful in his/her classroom.  

Towards that end, Dr. Wallace obtained a $10 million grant from the Ford Foundation to create a teacher center at Schenley High School. Over a four year period, every high school teacher spent six contiguous weeks at the center learning the language, behaviors and components of quality teaching. This was followed by both an elementary and middle school teacher center. The key to this project was a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers.  

PFT - PPS Memorandum of Understanding

The significance of the MOU was noteworthy. Since the right to bargain on behalf of the teachers was granted in 1968, the union and the board saw either other as adversaries. When Wallace was hired by the District, he quickly realized he had to find a way to partner with the union on a project that would benefit both the District and the Teachers. The Schenley High Teacher Center was that project. The MOU was ground breaking, watched closely by districts across the country. Any partnership that would improve instruction, lead to higher achievement and raise wages was a win-win for everyone.


II. The MAP (Monitoring Achievement in Pittsburgh) Program

Dr. Wallace believed that to raise achievement for all students, the teaching staff, parents, students and school administrators needed to know exactly what they were trying to achieve in their classes and how students were progressing. To develop the program, Wallace had expert teachers identify the core skills to be obtained in their content areas (i.e. Mathematics, Reading, English, Science) and create tests of those skills. Four times a year districtwide tests would be given that showed students progress towards learning the skills. Because all stakeholders received this information, everyone could go to work on moving forward. Teachers would focus instruction where needed. Building principals were seen as instructional leaders who would analyze the data and help teachers improve at their craft. Parents would support students to do homework and get better at their skills. This comprehensive program was a full assault at stopping students from falling between the cracks.

The Director of Assessment (Dr. Paul Lemahieu) for the District conducted a study to determine the effect of monitoring student achievement through formative testing. He found the program worked well and demonstrated that a data driven focused academic program could lead to end of the year achievement as measured by national standardized tests. The MAP Program raised student achievement, addressed racial achievement gaps and was another means for partnering with the teachers union.


III. The Pittsburgh Magnet Program

Post Gazette Editorial

The Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission won its suit in 1978. The ruling forced the district to integrate by 1979. Yet, forced integration in cities across the country led to middle class white/black flight to the suburbs.The issue that was hanging over Dr. Wallace's administration was to find a way to integrate District schools. Wallace decided to use a methodology predicated on voluntary integration.

The district created many new magnet school programs: Elementary Foreign Language Magnets, A Montessori School, Classical Academies (Perry), a Middle/High School that was based on the International Baccalaureate program (Frick/Schenley), a computer science magnet (Brashear), a science and mathematics magnet (Westinghouse), etc. The district's magnet program was wildly popular. Magnet schools used race quotas that guaranteed a demographic balance in the school. And when enrollment was done on a first come, first served basis, it created huge demand for the schools. Even when the program moved to a lottery, it was well received. For a number of years, these magnet programs attracted parents who would otherwise have left the school district. They were popular and filled to capacity. And they began to integrate the District using a method that was appealing to everyone.

The 12 years of Dr. Richard Wallace's tenure as Superintendent of he Pittsburgh Public Schools was considered a time of enlightenment in the District. Wallace's tenure was progressive and successful.  All efforts focused on curriculum, instruction and assessment and equity for all students. Every effort was made to partner with the union. The results were impressive. Thus, there was little opportunity for the first elected school board to micromanage or play local community politics. That's not to say they didn't try.

Wallace demonstrated that a strong leader, promoting ideas that are proven and have integrity, can work with a board and get the job done. As noted in the Post Gazette editorial above, the transition to the 1990's, particularly if Wallace retired would be a difficult one. In retrospect, the editorial was an understatement.

---

The Age of Constituencies, 1992 - 2012

Dr. Wallace's 12 year term in the school district was extremely long for an urban superintendent. When he retired in 1992, the board was tasked with some very difficult decisions. Who to hire to replace him? Should they raise taxes to maintain the programming and infrastructure that was necessary for success? How to deal with the shrinking student body (due to continued middle class flight?)

The first item the board addressed was finding a new superintendent. Rather than conduct a national search, the board chose to promote a local administrator to Superintendent. Louise Brennan was a career Pittsburgh Public School teacher and administrator. Under Dr. Wallace, Mrs. Brennan was the Asst. Superintendent responsible for Elementary and Middle Schools. She was a traditionalist who came out of a time before integration, a time rooted in neighborhood schools. Rather than spend the money on curriculum specialists, professional development and high cost authentic testing programs, she wanted to get back to basics and focus on neighborhood schools. This played into the hand of a school board that was elected by local neighborhoods.

9 PPS Board Districts

Since 1976, there were 9 districts, each with an elected Board Director with no term limits. Three of the districts were gerrymandered to be majority black. The rest were predominantly white. And the board members, whether they ran as Democrats, Republicans or both, were elected by the communities where they lived. More often than not, they sent their children to the public schools in those communities. Simply put, to stay in office they would have to meet the needs of their communities.

Note that each of the districts consisted of numerous city neighborhoods. Superimposing the neighborhood map onto the district map provides insight into a given district's demographics. Looking at the city from a race, ethnicity and socioeconomic perspective, Pittsburgh is a segregated city. In fact we are one of the least diverse, most segregated cities in the country. Some areas are almost all black: the Hill District, Homewood, Larimer, Beltzhoover, Manchester, Hazelwood, California-Kirkbride, Arlington Heights, St. Clair, Garfield, Lincoln-Lemington-Belmar, Perry South, Fairywood, East Hills. Some areas are almost all white: Bon Air, Carrick, Swisshelm Park, Squirrel Hill, Shadyside, Bloomfield, Beechview, Banksville, Brookline, Lincoln Place.

Consider how different this elected 9 member board was from the appointed 15 member board who were at-large. The new school board members were elected by district, often majority black or white and issues of race were at the forefront of decisions made by the board. Which schools were closed, which were renovated, which became magnets, how would busing occur and how were feeder patterns drawn?  It's not surprising that the prime directive for school board directors was to meet the needs of their local district.

Here is a list of one group of board members from the 1990's. Note their long tenure (8 - 32 years). And note the neighborhoods where they lived.

Liz Healey - 8 years - District 4 - Squirrel Hill
Alex Matthews - 12 years  - District 3 - Stanton Heights
Evelyn Neiser - 20 years - District 9 - Sheraden
Maggie Schmidt - 8 years - District 5 - Squirrel Hill
Randall Taylor - 12 years - District 1 - Point Breeze
Ron Suber - 14 years - District 8 - Northside
Jean Fink - 32 years - District 7 - Carrick
Jean Wood - 12 years - District 6 - Brookline
Darlene Harris - 8 years - District 2 - Spring HIll

Three black males and six white females. Three predominantly black districts and six predominantly white districts. There were 5 different superintendents from 1990 to 2000 (Wallace, Brennan, Frederick, Faison and Thompson.) Superintendent turnover created a leadership vacuum that was gladly filled by the 9 directors. Thus the district was being run in a self serving manner where directors fought over territories, resources, race and who would get which principals to run the schools in their district. The focus on education (process, product and equity) which was the theme of Wallace's administration was gone.

There was one other national issue that pushed the district toward a neighborhood model. The United States Supreme Court of the 1990's began to dismantle court ordered integration.

In the 1990s, a Supreme Court reconstructed by the appointees of Presidents Reagan and Bush handed down three very important decisions limiting desegregation rights and triggering a flood of lawsuits designed to end desegregation in major U.S. districts. In the 1991 Dowell case the Court held that desegregation orders were temporary and that school boards could return to segregated neighborhood schools. The next year, in the Freeman v. Pitts decision the Court authorized piecemeal dismantling of desegregation plans. Finally, in the Jenkins case in 1995 the Court rejected the effort of a lower court to maintain the desegregation and magnet school remedy in the Kansas City case until it produced actual benefits for African American students, thus drastically limiting the reach of the separate but equal promise of Milliken II.  (Resegregation of American Schools, Gary Orfield and John T. Yun June 1999)

By the end of the 1990's pressure from the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission was gone. Nationally (and locally) the words "neighborhood school" became the euphemism for "segregated schools". In Pittsburgh this occurred through the closings of many comprehensive middle schools and conversions of neighborhood elementary schools into K-8 schools. Since Pittsburgh neighborhoods are by and large, segregated, that meant that neighborhood K-8 schools were segregated as well. Some were all white, some were all black.

Pittsburgh Public Schools - Neighborhood K-8 Schools

The district, with its huge racial achievement gaps, was at the same place in 2000 as it was in 1968, except they now had local school board members they could hold accountable. And there was one other significant difference that was most important - the student population was a fraction of what it was when the District first considered having an elected school board.  

---

The End Game - Those with a vested interest.  

While the elected school board was evolving over the last 60 years, the district's enrollment decreased precipitously. Enrollment went from 72,000 students in the early 1960’s, to 48,000 in the early 1980’s, to 38,000 in the early 2000’s, to the current enrollment of approximately 24,000. Families left the city rather than integrate. The most obvious effect of this flight was a decrease in the number of public schools from 98 in the 1960’s to 54 in 2013. At 54 schools, many neighborhoods no longer had a public school (e.g. Hazelwood, Regent Square, Lawrenceville.) Students were bused to schools that consolidated the student populations of 2 or more neighborhoods. As neighborhoods lost their local schools, families become less engaged in public education. Some families stayed in the district, but attended private schools, parochial schools, charter schools or magnet schools. Some families stayed in the district and attended their segregated neighborhood school. And some left the district and moved to the suburbs. Community activism waned. Some gave up. And some looked to charter schools to provide a neighborhood school.  

A second less obvious, but very relevant, effect of the flight from the Pittsburgh schools pertained to student body demographics. Families that flee urban public schools often have more income that allows them mobility. Whether they pay to buy a home in the suburbs or pay tuition at private/parochial schools, they are allocating part of their income to what they consider superior schools. By default, the population that remains in the urban core is often poorer, with less means and more risk factors. Over the last 50 years, the average family income of Pittsburgh students dropped precipitously. More poor students, more broken families, more students with special needs all make the education enterprise more challenging. Finally, the flight to the suburbs also damaged Pittsburgh's tax base, thus causing budget problems for the school district.  

It is not a coincidence that the beginning of charter schools occurred simultaneously with resegregation. Flight to the suburbs, segregation based on both race and poverty, loss of tax revenue, higher costs for salaries, healthcare, utilities all created a challenging environment to educate children. And public school districts, organizations that have been in business for over 100 years, are not prone to reacting well or quickly to changing demographics. They struggle to keep up educationally, financially and politically. And they mumble about the good old days. 

Charter Schools were created to create a public school alternative that was more facile, more entrepreneurial and able to operate at a lower net cost.  Of course their very existence created additional problems for the public school district. They consumed time, energy, resources, funding and attention from the district. They were more like the district magnet schools. And often they were not neighborhood based.  

So who runs for the Pittsburgh School Board during times like this? In 2013 there were five seats (out of nine) up for election. Only one incumbent decided to run. Thus there were four open seats for the first time in many years. In the election, of the four seats, three were filled by former Pittsburgh teachers, one of whom spent the majority of her career working for the teachers union as the assistant to the President. The fourth new director was a parent who was endorsed by the union. 

In 2015, four more seats are up for election, with three incumbents not running again. This creates three new openings on the board. There are two people running for each of the three openings and the incumbent is running unchallenged for the fourth seat.  Seven people who want to be board directors.  Here are their backgrounds:

Candidate 1 - Incumbent - Retired Teacher/Principal from the Pittsburgh School District

Candidate 2 - Attorney and parent of two children 4 and 6 who attend a local university Montessori school.

Candidate 3 - Parent with a Masters degree in teaching and active in local schools with four children who have attended public, private and parochial schools.

Candidate 4 - Parent with a degree in teaching, married to a PPS teacher, with two children one of whom is school age and attends a city magnet school.

Candidate 5 - Parent with two students attending a city high school where she is the PTO president.  

Candidate 6 - CEO of a non-profit center that works with school aged black males.  

Candidate 7 - A legislative assistant with a Masters degree in education.  

Get the picture?

After the election in the Fall of 2015, there will be two directors that have more than 2 years experience on the board. In essence this will be a brand new school board. The board will consist almost solely of teachers, a principal and parents with backgrounds in education. The board will also have a strong teachers union bias.  

On the one hand this is fantastic. It is hard to find people more vested in quality education than teachers, a principal and parents. I believe they will work overtime to improve the district. And I believe they will try everything they possibly can to bring the district back.  

  

On the other hand this is distressing. This group of teachers, principal and parents only know what they know. They are running for election to become the Board of Directors of a $750,000,000 enterprise that has 24,000 customers and over 4000 employees. Their backgrounds are not in law, finance, governance, higher education or education reform. They are prone to believe that their local neighborhoods can save themselves. They are prone to believe that being in charge will allow them to "do the right thing."

If only it was that easy.

Our country has little or no example of urban school districts that have solved this 21st century urban public education problem. Dr. Richard Wallace came closer in Pittsburgh (and in our nation) than anyone I know. And his program was dismantled once he retired. This is not just a Pittsburgh problem. It is an American problem. My experience suggests that the answers lie in what we are learning at the individual quality school level. The answers lie in the commonalities between successful public, charter and independent schools that are succeeding with students in the urban core. They succeed in spite of limited resources, in spite of foolish state testing programs and in spite (not because) of the constant push for old style traditional schools. Some are union and some are not. Some are public, some private, some charter. But they all succeed because of exceptional leaders and exceptional teachers. There is no short cut to success.  

PPS Board Room

A School Board consisting of teachers, principals and parents. A School Board with a significant number of Directors who were members of the local teachers union. We are entering a new era when the elected Pittsburgh School Board consists solely of people who have an immediate vested interest in its success - teachers, a principal and parents.

We can only hope.