PURE Reform - Parents United for Responsible Educational Reform


Mission Statement	Announcements	Featured Topics	Three Year Review of District Initiatives	Questions About High School Reform	Blog	Links	Transparency Watch
Facilities Study Commentary May/ June 2009 A major premise of the “Building Excellence” facilities study for Pittsburgh Public Schools (“PPS”) is that the city of Pittsburgh is shrinking and that PPS enrollment is decreasing greatly. However, the decline in the district's enrollment in recent years has been much sharper than the decline in population in the city of Pittsburgh: a decline of almost 30% in PPS enrollment between 2000 and 2007 according to PPS data, compared to a decline of only 7% in city of Pittsburgh population over that same time period according to US Census estimates. (Note that the portion of the population under age 18 has according to demographic information provider Geolytics stayed constant over the past decade at about 20%.) In 2000 almost 80% of city students chose district schools, while for 2010 just over 60% chose district schools. Clearly, something more than a decline in population has led to declines in district enrollment. Possible explanations for a decline in district enrollment greater than a decline in the population of children are increasing charter school enrollment; increasing private school enrollment; and increasing dropout rates. All of these are trends which could be reversed if district schools were made more attractive to students and their families. In fac,t the deJong consultants predict a drop in PPS enrollment from 2008-2009 PPS enrollment of 28,265 to 2013-2014 PPS enrollment of 24,977, or a decrease of 12% in 5 years. But, if attractive options are provided, the district could attract some of the 15,000+ city students not attending district schools. In any event, no one seems to be predicting that the enrollment decline in recent years will continue at a similar rate into the future. The idea of attracting Pittsburgh students who have dropped out or chosed non-district schools is apparent in community dialogue results about how to handle under enrolled schools. The “High School Packet” for the May 13 and 14 facilities meetings notes that at the March Community Dialogue, when asked about what action should be taken for schools that are under enrolled, more than 50% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with operating under enrolled buildings even if they cost more, and that more than 70% agreed or strongly agreed with redistricting boundaries to better utilize facilities. However, many respondents noted in comments that action should be taken OTHER than operating under enrolled buildings even if they cost more or adjusting boundaries- such as creating more attractive options to lure students to under enrolled schools. The respondents may be on to something here- if there will be over 42,000 children from 6 to 17 in the city of Pittsburgh in 2014 and only about 25,000 projected to enroll in non-charter Pittsburgh public schools for the 2013-2014 school year, there are students available to attract. Contracting too severely may prove to be a self-fulfilling option. The High School Packet (draft) also shows that at the May 13 and May 14 meetings, respondents will be asked to rate the desirability of the following four high school options (High, Moderate or Low) and then to rank these options: Option A: A combination of comprehensive and thematic high schools: 3 comprehensive high schools ranging from 900 – 1200 students each and 5 thematic high schools ranging from 500 – 700 students each. Option B: A combination of comprehensive and thematic high schools: 5 comprehensive high schools ranging from 600 – 700 students each and 5 thematic high schools ranging from 500 – 700 students each. Option C: All thematic high schools: 10 thematic high schools ranging from 500 – 700 students each. Option D: A combination of comprehensive and thematic high schools containing grades 6 – 12 (per a facilities meeting this does not mean ALL 6-12 but apparently more 6-12 than already in place): 5 comprehensive high schools ranging from 900 – 1200 students each and 5 thematic high schools ranging from 700 – 900 students each. It is hard to evaluate as an abstract question whether for example three comprehensive schools would be better than five comprehensive schools, or whether there should be additional schools for grades 6-12. As respondents said so often at the March meeting, “it depends.” Factors may include safety, neighborhood, transportation and excess capacity issues as well as costs under the various options. Respondents would need to know the specific buildings, configurations and programs (including arrangements for sports and activities) that are being proposed in order to evaluate these options. It is not clear if or when an opportunity for this type of input on specific plans will be provided. Of the theoretical choices provided it is difficult to see how an option other than B will be chosen. Many will prefer to keep their neighborhood high schools, and Option A's offer of three comprehensive schools would mean that only one neighborhood high school other than Allderdice and Brashear would survive. Option C, which disrupts all high schools and leaves no neighborhood high schools, will also be unpopular. Option D raises the possibility of additional 6-12 schools, but many people have expressed concerns about placing this wide of an age range in a single school (unless the 6-12 option is viewed as a way to keep the respondent's particular neighborhood high school such as Westinghouse). And, while a later question for the May 13 and 14 meetings seems to offer a choice about whether or not there should be a freestanding career tech academy (without explaining the implications of a freestanding academy, such as low enrollment and increased and expensive overcapacity at remaining comprehensive schools), all of the high school options seem to assume a fifth thematic school in addition to the four thematic schools already approved. As a result, the survey can be expected to lead to Choice B (five comprehensive schools: Allderdice, Brashear, Carrick, a school for the North Side and likely as a 6-12 Westinghouse , and five thematic schools: U Prep, sci tech, IB at Peabody, CAPA and an (expensive) career tech academy at Connelly). This outcome is in line with what the administration has been proposing all along. One alternative would be smaller comprehensive high schools combined with a theme/magnet in each school, providing sports, activities, and MORE choices to all students. Although the configuration and location of newly formed themed schools is being treated as a "given," these arrangements could be revisited and for example the IB school could be a themed school within or sharing a building with a comprehensive school. Alternatively if the Board was unwilling in light of the deJong findings to rethink the four approved thematic schools, the four thematics complete with the existing locations and configurations could be "given" but any thematic schools beyond that could be located in the same buildings as comprehensive schools. If full enrollment is maintained the "given" thematics would have a maximum of 2200 grade 9-12 students (600 each at U Prep, CAPA and IB and 400 at sci tech) and, currently, about 5,800 grade 9-12 students at other non-charter Pittsburgh public schools. Since the thematics are likely to have some students who drop out and transfer, even under the deJong enrollment projections for 2018 there would probably be 4200 students remaining for the comprehensive + magnet/theme schools, and more if some of the 15,000 students expected to drop out or choose private or charter schools are attracted to these improved schools. With a career tech academy the number of students available for comprehensive schools under the consultant's projections would drop to about 3,500 in 2018 (assuming 10% of students are in CTE), leaving only about 3,500 students for comprehensive high schools (hence the 5 comprehensive schools of 700 students each, assuming efforts were made to even out enrollment among the schools by for example removing magnets from schools like Allderdice). Unfortunately there is no option on the survey to mark “Other.” Comments may be written in, but it is not clear if/how those comments will be considered or made public; the tendency would seem to be to simply report that “x% preferred Option A,B,C or D.” As a result this question will reveal little about whether there are other options respondents would prefer, given complete information and a wider range of choices. UPDATE June 2009: At a facilities steering committee meeting in June survey results were presented and the option with most support was Option B as expected given the problems with the other choices. Many comments indicated that there was not enough information presented to make a choice ("the group would not answer this question until specific buildings were identified," "not enough information to make an informed choice" and "need more specifics to rate these options"). One respondent commented that this was a "forced choice when other options exist." The theme that came though most strongly was a dislike for grade 6-12 schools ("Putting 6th graders in a building with 10th thru 12th grades is asking for trouble" and "concern about middle and high school being together is a safety issue"). There was also interest in preserving neighborhood schools even at the high school level ("Don't want to see even more students leaving their own areas to attend school; this phenomenon is one of the reasons, at every level, that we have less family involvement. There is a certain amount of 'ownership' in your feeder school" and "neighborhood schools preferred") and there were concerns about safety if neighborhood issues are not considered ("care in mixing neighborhoods is essential").

Mission Statement

Announcements

Featured Topics

Three Year Review of District Initiatives

Questions About High School Reform

Blog

Links

Transparency
Watch

Facilities Study Commentary

May/ June 2009

A major premise of the “Building Excellence” facilities study for Pittsburgh Public Schools (“PPS”) is that the city of Pittsburgh is shrinking and that PPS enrollment is decreasing greatly. However, the decline in the district's enrollment in recent years has been much sharper than the decline in population in the city of Pittsburgh: a decline of almost 30% in PPS enrollment between 2000 and 2007 according to PPS data, compared to a decline of only 7% in city of Pittsburgh population over that same time period according to US Census estimates. (Note that the portion of the population under age 18 has according to demographic information provider Geolytics stayed constant over the past decade at about 20%.) In 2000 almost 80% of city students chose district schools, while for 2010 just over 60% chose district schools. Clearly, something more than a decline in population has led to declines in district enrollment.

Possible explanations for a decline in district enrollment greater than a decline in the population of children are increasing charter school enrollment; increasing private school enrollment; and increasing dropout rates. All of these are trends which could be reversed if district schools were made more attractive to students and their families. In fac,t the deJong consultants predict a drop in PPS enrollment from 2008-2009 PPS enrollment of 28,265 to 2013-2014 PPS enrollment of 24,977, or a decrease of 12% in 5 years. But, if attractive options are provided, the district could attract some of the 15,000+ city students not attending district schools. In any event, no one seems to be predicting that the enrollment decline in recent years will continue at a similar rate into the future.

The idea of attracting Pittsburgh students who have dropped out or chosed non-district schools is apparent in community dialogue results about how to handle under enrolled schools. The “High School Packet” for the May 13 and 14 facilities meetings notes that at the March Community Dialogue, when asked about what action should be taken for schools that are under enrolled, more than 50% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with operating under enrolled buildings even if they cost more, and that more than 70% agreed or strongly agreed with redistricting boundaries to better utilize facilities. However, many respondents noted in comments that action should be taken OTHER than operating under enrolled buildings even if they cost more or adjusting boundaries- such as creating more attractive options to lure students to under enrolled schools. The respondents may be on to something here- if there will be over 42,000 children from 6 to 17 in the city of Pittsburgh in 2014 and only about 25,000 projected to enroll in non-charter Pittsburgh public schools for the 2013-2014 school year, there are students available to attract. Contracting too severely may prove to be a self-fulfilling option.

The High School Packet (draft) also shows that at the May 13 and May 14 meetings, respondents will be asked to rate the desirability of the following four high school options (High, Moderate or Low) and then to rank these options:

Option A: A combination of comprehensive and thematic high schools: 3 comprehensive high schools ranging from 900 – 1200 students each and 5 thematic high schools ranging from 500 – 700 students each.

Option B: A combination of comprehensive and thematic high schools: 5 comprehensive high schools ranging from 600 – 700 students each and 5 thematic high schools ranging from 500 – 700 students each.

Option C: All thematic high schools: 10 thematic high schools ranging from 500 – 700 students each.

Option D: A combination of comprehensive and thematic high schools containing grades 6 – 12 (per a facilities meeting this does not mean ALL 6-12 but apparently more 6-12 than already in place): 5 comprehensive high schools ranging from 900 – 1200 students each and 5 thematic high schools ranging from 700 – 900 students each.

It is hard to evaluate as an abstract question whether for example three comprehensive schools would be better than five comprehensive schools, or whether there should be additional schools for grades 6-12. As respondents said so often at the March meeting, “it depends.” Factors may include safety, neighborhood, transportation and excess capacity issues as well as costs under the various options. Respondents would need to know the specific buildings, configurations and programs (including arrangements for sports and activities) that are being proposed in order to evaluate these options. It is not clear if or when an opportunity for this type of input on specific plans will be provided.

Of the theoretical choices provided it is difficult to see how an option other than B will be chosen. Many will prefer to keep their neighborhood high schools, and Option A's offer of three comprehensive schools would mean that only one neighborhood high school other than Allderdice and Brashear would survive. Option C, which disrupts all high schools and leaves no neighborhood high schools, will also be unpopular. Option D raises the possibility of additional 6-12 schools, but many people have expressed concerns about placing this wide of an age range in a single school (unless the 6-12 option is viewed as a way to keep the respondent's particular neighborhood high school such as Westinghouse). And, while a later question for the May 13 and 14 meetings seems to offer a choice about whether or not there should be a freestanding career tech academy (without explaining the implications of a freestanding academy, such as low enrollment and increased and expensive overcapacity at remaining comprehensive schools), all of the high school options seem to assume a fifth thematic school in addition to the four thematic schools already approved.

As a result, the survey can be expected to lead to Choice B (five comprehensive schools: Allderdice, Brashear, Carrick, a school for the North Side and likely as a 6-12 Westinghouse , and five thematic schools: U Prep, sci tech, IB at Peabody, CAPA and an (expensive) career tech academy at Connelly). This outcome is in line with what the administration has been proposing all along.

One alternative would be smaller comprehensive high schools combined with a theme/magnet in each school, providing sports, activities, and MORE choices to all students. Although the configuration and location of newly formed themed schools is being treated as a "given," these arrangements could be revisited and for example the IB school could be a themed school within or sharing a building with a comprehensive school. Alternatively if the Board was unwilling in light of the deJong findings to rethink the four approved thematic schools, the four thematics complete with the existing locations and configurations could be "given" but any thematic schools beyond that could be located in the same buildings as comprehensive schools.

If full enrollment is maintained the "given" thematics would have a maximum of 2200 grade 9-12 students (600 each at U Prep, CAPA and IB and 400 at sci tech) and, currently, about 5,800 grade 9-12 students at other non-charter Pittsburgh public schools. Since the thematics are likely to have some students who drop out and transfer, even under the deJong enrollment projections for 2018 there would probably be 4200 students remaining for the comprehensive + magnet/theme schools, and more if some of the 15,000 students expected to drop out or choose private or charter schools are attracted to these improved schools. With a career tech academy the number of students available for comprehensive schools under the consultant's projections would drop to about 3,500 in 2018 (assuming 10% of students are in CTE), leaving only about 3,500 students for comprehensive high schools (hence the 5 comprehensive schools of 700 students each, assuming efforts were made to even out enrollment among the schools by for example removing magnets from schools like Allderdice).

Unfortunately there is no option on the survey to mark “Other.” Comments may be written in, but it is not clear if/how those comments will be considered or made public; the tendency would seem to be to simply report that “x% preferred Option A,B,C or D.” As a result this question will reveal little about whether there are other options respondents would prefer, given complete information and a wider range of choices.

UPDATE June 2009: At a facilities steering committee meeting in June survey results were presented and the option with most support was Option B as expected given the problems with the other choices. Many comments indicated that there was not enough information presented to make a choice ("the group would not answer this question until specific buildings were identified," "not enough information to make an informed choice" and "need more specifics to rate these options"). One respondent commented that this was a "forced choice when other options exist."

The theme that came though most strongly was a dislike for grade 6-12 schools ("Putting 6th graders in a building with 10th thru 12th grades is asking for trouble" and "concern about middle and high school being together is a safety issue"). There was also interest in preserving neighborhood schools even at the high school level ("Don't want to see even more students leaving their own areas to attend school; this phenomenon is one of the reasons, at every level, that we have less family involvement. There is a certain amount of 'ownership' in your feeder school" and "neighborhood schools preferred") and there were concerns about safety if neighborhood issues are not considered ("care in mixing neighborhoods is essential").