I came back after New Years from visiting relatives and settled in to a Pittsburgh winter. There were two Post-Gazette (P-G) articles, one in January and one in February, that caught my eye. Both involved the Pittsburgh Public Schools. Both were important stories. Neither seemed to have much to do with one another.
Yet I can't get them out of my head.
To me, these stories define the issues, politics and struggles in public education in Pittsburgh and across the nation. Within the stories we find the major themes of community, segregation by race and poverty, the mission of public schools in the urban core and school choice. These types of articles beckon us to get our head out of the sand and deal with these issues in an honest and fact-based fashion. The answers to our current dilemmas lie in our history.
This is the first of a two-part post pertaining to the Pittsburgh Public Schools reform initiatives from 2006 to 2016 and their impact on student achievement and local neighborhoods.
Post-Gazette Story I - January 15, 2017
The January Post-Gazette story I'm referring to was not actually a story, it was an editorial. For years I've read editorials by the P-G about the school district. They were always polite to the point of being politically correct, always looking at the bright side, always constructive. The P-G has consistently supported traditional public education, respecting both the union and the school board and reticent to support public charter schools. Yet this editorial was damning. I was shocked by its tone. This was the most critical piece on the public schools that I've seen by the P-G editorial board. It pertained to a recent Council of Great City Schools report on the 2016 status of the Pittsburgh Public Schools.
"The council put the best possible face on its findings, noting that the problems are similar to those in other urban districts and asserting that Pittsburgh’s schools have “the talent, the will and the determination” to achieve a turnaround. But there is no sugarcoating the fact that issues targeted years ago now have to be addressed anew under superintendent Anthony Hamlet. The council urged patience as officials work on a turnaround, but a city surging forward in so many respects actually should take the opposite tack — impatience — with a perpetually troubled school system."Where did this report come from?
Upon the retirement of Superintendent Linda Lane, the Pittsburgh Public Schools (PPS) hired Dr. Anthony Hamlet as Superintendent in June 2016. Immediately after his arrival, Superintendent Hamlet asked the Council of Great City Schools (CGCS) to conduct a comprehensive review of the Pittsburgh Public Schools' organization, instruction, research and operations. PPS is a member of the Council of Great City Schools.
"The Council of the Great City Schools brings together the nation’s largest urban public school systems in a coalition dedicated to the improvement of education for children in the inner cities. The Council and its member school districts work to help our schoolchildren meet the highest standards and become successful and productive members of society."This was an extremely wise move on the part of the newly hired Superintendent. It would provide Dr. Hamlet with a non-biased review of the District that would inform his efforts. It would also provide a baseline that could be used to measure Dr. Hamlet's achievements as he moves forward.
Before we review the report's findings in greater detail, let's go back and review the chain of events starting in 2006 that led to this report.
-----------------------------------------
2006 - The Beginning of the Reform
In 2005, the newly appointed Superintendent, Mark Roosevelt, did exactly as Dr. Hamlet did and asked the Council of Great City Schools to review the current state of the District.
In March 2006 the CGCS presented their report to the District - Focusing on Achievement in the Pittsburgh Public Schools. Here is a summary from the report (pg. 74).
The CGCS team focused on improving student achievement. Their recommendations pertained to the need for a more comprehensive curriculum that included improved instruction, improved pacing guidelines, alignment of curriculum and instruction to state assessments, better data collection and strengthening the District's professional development program."... the Council’s instructional team also made a number of recommendations in this report to strengthen and focus some of the superintendent’s priorities, as well as to augment reforms that he already has begun. For example, some of the team’s proposals were directed at setting measurable targets by subgroup that go beyond No Child Left Behind requirements. The team also made recommendations about the district’s reading adoption and math program. The team described a new approach to the district’s pacing guides that it believes would provide for more instructional consistency, could guide classroom work, build in concept reviews, and better align instruction with the curriculum and state assessments, and prepare students for the next grade level and its required testing. The team also made a series of recommendations to strengthen professional development. And the team suggested additional steps toward more accurate data on which to make instructional and program decisions. Finally, the team made a number of recommendations on the district’s program for gifted and talented students."
The new superintendent, Mark Roosevelt, came in with a Board directive to move the Pittsburgh Public Schools forward into the 21st Century. This CGCS report provided guidance and context for the new superintendent's initiatives, particular those related to curriculum and teacher development.
Roosevelt, a recent graduate of the Broad Superintendent Academy, was part of a new generation of school leadership.
"The Broad Academy brings together game-changing leaders who challenge, support and learn from each other as they develop innovative strategies to tackle some of urban public education’s greatest needs."Roosevelt was not an educator, meaning he did not have a degree in education, was not state certified as an educator, did not have the Pennsylvania Letter of Eligibility for Superintendency and had no K12 experience. He was a Massachusetts politician and state legislator who was appointed as Chairman of the legislature’s Education Committee, where he was the co-author and chief sponsor of the Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993. His arrival in Pittsburgh began a period of great excitement and multiple initiatives leading to great change.
Here are four of his signature Pittsburgh initiatives.
1. "Right Sizing" and the ALAs - The CGCS report mentioned "the many changes being pursued aggressively by the leadership". Two of these changes were articulated in a Board presentation made March 1, 2006.
- "Right sizing" the District by closing 22 schools, closing 18 buildings, moving 3 schools, expanding 10 elementary schools to K-8."
- "Creating 8 Accelerated Learning Academies at its poorest achieving schools. These schools could have a longer calendar and a longer school day."
There were numerous public concerns about the closing and merging of neighborhood schools. As one might imagine the staff, school board members, parents and students from the schools to be closed were not pleased. Questions were raised about racial and economic discrimination pertaining to which schools were closed. Many local neighborhoods were left without a school in their community. Many students were bused into other neighborhoods to attend large consolidated schools (often K-8), much different from the small neighborhood school (K-5) they were attending. And many teachers would be transferred or possibly laid off.
2. Excellence for All (EFA) - Building off the recommendations of the CGCS 2006 report, the District created a program called Excellence for All to address the curriculum and instructional needs of the District.
Findings such as these (CGCS) heightened a sense of urgency that motivated a decision by PPS leadership to introduce the Excellence for All plan, a comprehensive, ambitious set of districtwide instructional improvement efforts aimed at promoting its goals through managed instruction.
As part of the EFA strategy, the District contracted with various external partners to provide and/or support a host of educational interventions intended to improve classroom instruction, with the ultimate goal of increasing student achievement test scores. Macmillan and Kaplan K12 (or Kaplan) were contracted to provide curricula, pedagogical approaches, and assessment tools to support their curricula, as well as to provide training on their use. The Institute for Learning (IFL) was contracted to provide professional development (PD) focused on training school administrators and instructional coaches to be effective instructional leaders. America’s Choice (AC) was contracted to provide a comprehensive school reform design, incorporating each of the components of MI, in eight previously low performing schools that have been reconstituted as “Accelerated Learning Academies” (ALAs). (RAND Report, pg vii.)What made EFA so significant was this was the first time the District implemented a completely external curriculum, instruction and assessment program that was not designed by Pittsburgh teachers and content supervisors. In the past, district staff would develop curriculums that included courses of study, pacing guidelines and accompanying assessments. They would then purchase a textbook that was aligned with the curriculum. The District content supervisors would provide the professional development necessary to implement the program. No doubt this break from the traditional PPS curriculum development process ruffled some feathers. Culturally, reaching outside of the District was a radical change. Four different partners made this an even greater challenge to manage.
The concept of "managed instruction" would not be an easy sell for teachers. "Managed Instruction"by definition takes away a teacher's autonomy and no longer allows for teacher input regarding content, pacing and pedagogy. Typically, when implementing "Managed Instruction", there is huge push back from the faculty, particularly from creative and engaged teachers who love their content and thrive on instructional creativity.
3. Empowering Effective Teachers Program (EET) - Starting in 2008, the District, in collaboration with the Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers embarked on its Empowering Effective Teachers Program. This effort was supported by $78 million from the Gates Foundation and the U.S. Department of Education. Here is what Superintendent Mark Roosevelt said at the time:
“This is a huge win for Pittsburgh,” said Superintendent Mark Roosevelt. “We know that excellent teachers matter. With the right skills, knowledge, support and inspiration, teachers can help students reach achievement levels that lead to college success or workforce certification. This funding will enable us to take that next step in our efforts to maximize teacher effectiveness and improve student achievement.”The $78 million went to creating a teacher evaluation system, a student survey tool, creation of value added measures, professional development and teacher support mechanisms. This was a significant endeavor due to the collaboration necessary between the district and the teachers union. It focused on teacher evaluation, support and a career path that was attached to accountability. A complete description of the program can be found on the District's website.
What was so radical about the Empowering Effective Teachers Program was that it would grade a teacher's performance using four factors:
- Teacher Observations by Principal or Supervisor (50%) - RISE
- Student Ratings via a Tripod survey (15%)
- Teacher Value-Added Measure (VAM) using class test scores (30%)
- School Value-Added Measure (VAM) using school test scores (5%)
This was the first time in the history of the District that teacher evaluations were connected to measures of accountability. And that accountability could (if the teacher agreed) be tied to additional compensation (if the standards were met). This issue of teacher accountability was the reason the Gates Foundation and DOE funded the project. As you might imagine, this raised the faculty's level of concern. Could the accountability system be honest, fair and constructive?
4. The Pittsburgh Promise - The Pittsburgh Promise, created by Superintendent Roosevelt in 2006, promised Pittsburgh students $20,000 towards college tuition starting with the graduating class of 2008 and $40,000 starting with the class of 2012. For Pittsburgh, this was a groundbreaking concept. A city would provide its eligible graduating seniors with scholarships to college. It was built on a similar project in Kalamazoo Michigan. The Promise was an ambitious endeavor funded through grants and donations by local foundations and corporations. The major matching grant came from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC - $100 million). The creators and funders of the Pittsburgh Promise hoped that it would encourage parents to stay in the District and attract families from outside of Pittsburgh to move into the District.
Wow! These four simultaneous initiatives created an incredibly ambitious agenda for the school district.
- Right-sizing the District by closing schools and moving over 6000 students to new schools;
- Implementing a comprehensive curriculum, instruction and assessment program (EFA) that was managed through four partners external to the District;
- Developing a new teacher accountability program which included a new union contract; and
- Fundraising for and implementing a college scholarship program for all eligible Pittsburgh student.
The 2006 Council of Great City School report sensed that Roosevelt and the District were possibly biting off more than they could chew. Their report included a "note of caution" to the ambitious Superintendent and School Board (pg. 74):
"As the district revamps its strategic direction, reorganizes its staff and schools, and builds a sense of urgency for the work ahead, the Council offers a note of caution. The many changes being pursued aggressively by the leadership may stretch staff too thinly and may risk the appearance of incoherence among those affected by the changes. It is important for the district to take the time to develop an organizing vision and rationale that unifies all of the changes.
The Council urges the district leadership to avoid the temptation to focus on structural changes rather than on the levers that could effect student achievement positively. The package of reforms needs to be rolled out in a coherent manner that the public and staff can understand and see how the changes fit together on behalf of greater student achievement. The staff and the teachers also need time to revamp their practices, gain new skills and knowledge, and develop new attitudes and expectations if the leadership’s reforms are to take root and be sustained over a prolonged period. Time will also be needed for the public to develop some sense of ownership and support for the reforms. These points do not constitute an argument to slow down or to dampen the leadership’s sense of urgency. Urgency is called for now more than ever. But these points do argue for taking the time to think through the reforms in a way that assures that they mesh seamlessly together, that unintended consequences are not created, and that the skills necessary to implement the reforms correctly are built."
This warning was prescient. The initiatives were bound to bump up against the existing culture and power structures in a large school district. They would directly affect nearly every teacher, principal, student and parent in the District. Would people really understand the big picture?
In retrospect, it was too much, too quick and too complex. It did not take into account the time and effort it takes for the stakeholders to understand and accept the new direction the District was taking. It did not take into account the profound effect of closing schools and moving students with little or no input from their parents. It never really paid attention to the needs, emotions, concerns and fears of the humans who were being acted upon. And it never honestly reached out to gain their input.
It was not a smooth ride. And Superintendent Roosevelt, the architect of the reform, moved on from the District after five years.
-----------------------------------------
As stated, when Dr. Anthony Hamlet became the Superintendent of the Pittsburgh Public Schools, he requested a follow up review by the Council of Great City Schools. For those who are deeply invested in the Pittsburgh Public Schools, I would highly recommend downloading this report and reading it in its entirety.
At a minimum read the Summary and Discussion Pg. 108 -109. The 2017 CGCS report presents us with an opportunity to see whether the District succeeded at its ambitious agenda.
These are main the conclusions drawn in the 2017 review of the Pittsburgh Public Schools (pg. 108).
In retrospect, it was too much, too quick and too complex. It did not take into account the time and effort it takes for the stakeholders to understand and accept the new direction the District was taking. It did not take into account the profound effect of closing schools and moving students with little or no input from their parents. It never really paid attention to the needs, emotions, concerns and fears of the humans who were being acted upon. And it never honestly reached out to gain their input.
It was not a smooth ride. And Superintendent Roosevelt, the architect of the reform, moved on from the District after five years.
-----------------------------------------
2016 - 10 Years Later
 |
| Download Report |
At a minimum read the Summary and Discussion Pg. 108 -109. The 2017 CGCS report presents us with an opportunity to see whether the District succeeded at its ambitious agenda.
These are main the conclusions drawn in the 2017 review of the Pittsburgh Public Schools (pg. 108).
"The district is now left with an instructional system that doesn’t work properly and a human capital system that can’t do what it was designed to do."
"Paired with the district’s lack of research, data, and evaluation capacity to determine what works and what doesn’t, this leaves the school system with no clear direction or strategy for improving student achievement."
"The instructional tools that the system has developed do not provide ample guidance to teachers and other school-based staff about what to teach and at what level of rigor."
"... absenteeism is unusually high in Pittsburgh, and suspension rates are also high relative to other city school systems."
"... instructional opportunities in the district, like access to Advanced Placement courses, were uneven from school to school."
"... the district’s organizational structure has become warped and misaligned as a result of all the reforms, and there is a marked lack of staff collaboration."
"... the district also lacks some key staff positions like a chief financial officer and a budget director."
"... the district may be underutilizing the resources it has at its disposal to support its schools and improve instructional programming."
"The lesson to be learned from the Pittsburgh reforms is similar to the lessons of reform efforts implemented in other major cities: human capital reform without an instructional focus only gets a district so far in improving student achievement. What appears to have happened here in Pittsburgh was that the district pursued the human capital side of the work, but took its eye off of instructional improvements until just the last couple of years. Ultimately, the human capital side of the work in Pittsburgh was watered down to a point where it is now unable to discern which teachers are most effective and which ones are the least." (pg. 108)I would suggest that focusing on teacher development (EET) while contracting out curriculum, instruction and assessment (EFA) was a contributing factor to divorcing "human capital reform" from "instructional improvements".
It also appears that the disruption and dissonance created by school closings, changes in faculty, and problems with curriculum ultimately had a secondary effect on many families in the District.
In September 2006 (when the reform began) there were 29,445 students K-12. In September 2016 (when Dr. Hamlet joined the District) there were 23,286.
This was a student loss of 21% (over 6000 students) during these two administrations. During the same time, according to the US Census Bureau, the city of Pittsburgh lost 2.6% of its population. This would suggest that parents left the school district due to dissatisfaction with their child's education, not due to movement out of Pittsburgh for other reasons.
What was compelling about this loss of students was that it occurred at the same time as the implementation of the Pittsburgh Promise. One would have guessed that the college scholarship program would incentivize current students to stay in the system. Clearly the families were upset enough to leave the District schools and forgo the scholarship opportunity. I don't know how many students transferred to charters*, how many to private schools and how many moved out of the district. But it is safe to say that there were a significant number in each category.
*It should be noted that transferring to a Charter School in Pittsburgh maintained eligibility for the Pittsburgh Promise.
It is now 2017 and in spite of the recommendations made in the 2006 CGCS report, the $74 million in grants to develop a program of teacher empowerment, the over $150 million donated to the Pittsburgh Promise and the efforts made to improve the instructional program in Pittsburgh, the district is the same, if not worse off, from a student achievement perspective than when it started the reforms in 2006.
The second part of this post looks at the impact of these school reforms on local Pittsburgh neighborhoods.
