PURE Reform - Parents United for Responsible Educational Reform


Home	Announcements	Featured Topics	Three Year Review of District Initiatives	Questions About High School Reform	Blog	Links	Transparency Watch
Transparency Watch Transparency Watch is a tool for identifying and seeking important information related to Pittsburgh Public Schools which has not yet been provided to the public. Suggestions for additional topics are welcomed. Topics: ALA Parent Engagement Strategies Asbestos Plaster Schools CAS Elimination Closed Meetings Committees Community Education Partners (CEP) Excellence for All Goals Grade 6-12 Configuration Graduation Rates High School Facilities Plan Incentive Programs for Students Magnet Lottery Pittsburgh Milliones (formerly called University Prep) PSSA State/PPS Gap Reentry Programs Schenley Committee Schenley Cost to Renovate School Enrollment Figures Stimulus Package Funds Summer Literacy Camp _________________________________________________________________________ ALA Parent Engagement Strategies PURE Reform (April 2009) - We were told several months ago that an assessment of the parent engagement strategies at the ALAs was under way. We are anxious to get the results of that evaluation as parent engagement is essential to the success of our students. True parent engagement should be school-based, especially considering the population of PPS parents, many of whom must use public transportation. The movement towards a “school choice” model, if there is no local school option, will only serve to further disenfranchise parents with no access to schools that are located far from their homes. District Response (May 2009) - The District provided a link to a report on the ALA’s presented at the January 2009 Education Committee meeting and noted that the District is not aware of an assessment of parent engagement strategies at the ALA’s. PURE Reform (August 2009) – In PURE Reform's comments on the Strategic Plan submitted to the District in October 2008, for activity 1.10h PURE had asked “What are the results of the parent engagement efforts at the ALA’s?” The District’s response in November 2008 was, “The District is currently developing an external evaluation to assess this affect.” Asbestos Plaster Schools: PURE Reform (March 2009) - Clear information is needed when schools will be considered unsafe due to ACM issues. For example, over the last three months alone, at Vann Elementary there was an emergency clean up of falling ceiling plaster from the auditorium as well as removal of loose asbestos plaster in the library and in a classroom. Over 200 Pittsburgh residents have requested but not received a comparison of the condtion of the plaster at schools such as Vann to the plaster at Schenley. District Response (April 2009) - “Our Facilities Division has summarized the condition of the plaster at Schenley vs. the plaster at other schools as follows: The vast majority of plaster problems at all other school can be attributed to water damage, including pipe leaks, roof leaks, or water infiltration. A substantial amount of plaster problems at Schenley cannot be attributed to water damage. There does not seem to be one simple cause for all of the plaster problems at Schenley. The building does have plaster damaged by the same water related problems mentioned above, but many plaster bubbles occurred in areas that could not be attributed to water sources. Reasons for all the plaster delamination problems at Schenley are not known, but some other suggested causes have included humidity problems, vibration and simple old age. Inspections of the plaster conditions at Baxter, Manchester, Miller/McKelvey are being conducted by independent consultants and are scheduled to be completed by the end of May.” PURE Reform (August 2009) – As of mid July, no report of the inspections by independent consultants had been completed. The district’s attorneys state that a report will not be ready until late summer or early Fall. No reason was given for the delay or why it should take almost six months to perform these inspections. Regarding a comparison between Schenley and other PPS with pervasive asbestos plaster, such as Mckelvey, Vann and Woolslair, all of these buildings and their plaster are of about the same age. A 1994 report shows that even at that time, a long list of rooms at McKelvy had 5-25% damaged plaster and needed repair. The main causes of plaster failure are well known: water damage, weather/humidity, and age, exacerbated by movement. In most cases records of plaster repair work at Mckelvy, Vann and Woolslair do not mention a water leak and so likely involved plaster bubbles and other unpredictable damage resulting from weather or age. A independent comparison of the plaster at Schenley v. the plaster at McKelvey, Vann and Wooslair would put questions to rest, but the distict has without explanation refused requests for such a comparison to be done. PURE Reform (September 2009) - In the second half of August an inspection report from AGX was released showing asbestos plaster damage scattered throughout Vann, Miller/McKelvey and Woolslair. For some of the damage the cause is unknown. The district's indicates that the second report of inspections done last April is expected in mid-October and, when asked whether the report was given to the facilities consultant, refuses to answer. PURE Reform (October 2009) - The district's attorney states that the report from the inspection done by a second consultant in April has not been received by the district and that the attorney has no other information. Given that 6 months have passed it can only be concluded that the district does not want the report. If the report was instead delivered to another consultant that would enable the district to claim not to have it. CAS Elimination PURE Reform (April 2009) - The PPS Parent hotline will not confirm or deny that elimination of CAS is being considered- they will only say that there are no plans at the current time to discontinue the program. District Response (June 2009) - There are no plans to discontinue CAS programs. PURE Reform (August 2009) - The District still has not confirmed or denied that elimination of CAS is being considered. Committees PURE Reform (April 2009) - The committee formed to examine the future of Peabody High School was by “invitation only”, shutting out many in the East End community. In addition, the public is not even permitted to observe these meetings. District Response (May 2009) - The District stated that the Pittsburgh Peabody Committee was formed by the Superintendent and is “responsible for developing a plan to best serve the needs of students in the Pittsburgh Peabody feeder pattern.” The District stated that meetings were not open to the public. PURE Reform (May 2009) - In the true spirit of transparency, committees that are formed by the administration to address various reform issues should include people with all perspectives and opinions. We request that the formation of these committees be announced in advance and that all stakeholders have an opportunity to participate and that these meetings be open for the public to observe. District Response (June 2009) - “Typically, the Superintendent publically shares the recommendations of the committees. Every attempt is made to ensure that there is appropriate representation on committees established by the Administration in order to meet the needs of each committee’s work. Sometimes committee meetings will be open for the public to observe and sometimes they will not be open for the public to observe, depending on the nature of the work.” PURE Reform (August 2009) - Is there any reason not to announce formation of committees in advance, and what exactly is “appropriate representation”- does it include those with opposing viewpoints? What situations require a closed committee? Why for example were meetings of the Pittsburgh Peabody committee closed and when will that committee’s report be released? Community Education Partners (CEP) PURE Reform (March 2009) - As of a month ago we were told that no evaluation was available on the performance of this very expensive school ($5M per year). Also, updated enrollment information does not seem to have been posted on the PPS website. District Response (April 2009) - The district provided a copy of a March 2009 presentation made to a Board committee. These materials had also been posted on the PPS website. The link is http://www.pps.k12.pa.us/14311059122535553/lib/14311059122535553/ ClaytonAcademyEvaluation_v19.pdf) . It also noted that “no specific public record” exists in response to this request. It notes that the District’s review team and CEP have met annually to review individual students’ academic and behavioral performance. Excellence for All Goals PURE Reform (May 2009) - When will there be an update on how the district is doing regarding Excellence for All goals i.e. # of students taking AP exams, # of African American students taking AP exams, # of students scoring 3-5 on AP exams, # of students graduating? District response (June 2009) - The District has not established a date for an update on the Excellence for All goals since all the data required is not yet available for example, the advanced placement test scores are not available until late July. PURE Reform (August 2009) - What is the expected date for a report on EFA goals? Since the four year period for EFA PSSA goals has now passed, will updated EFA PSSA and other goals be established and if so, when? Grade 6-12 Configuration PURE Reform (March 2009) - We have not yet seen evidence supporting the benefits of this format. District Response (April 2009) - The administration presented materials called “Case Studies of Schools Serving Students Grades 6-12.” These materials note that in New York City there are 88 schools for grades 6-12 or 7-12 and that in recent years certain 8th grade test scores have improved. The materials note that Rochester has some grade 7-12 schools and test scores have improved in recent years, and that Boston has three competitive-admission exam schools for grades 7-12. The materials note that Houston has five grade 6-12 charter prep schools. PURE Reform Response (August 2009) - While these materials show that some systems have chosen grade 6-12 or 7-12 schools, no academic studies were cited to support the format. In fact, a study done at the Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy at Columbia University that shows that the 6-12 format has little impact on academic and non-academic student outcomes (http://iserp.columbia.edu/research-initiatives/working-paper-series/fresh-starts-school-form-and-student-outcomes ). Graduation Rates PURE Reform (August 2009) - Many people have expressed interest in an update on changes in graduation rates over the last four years using the RAND method rather than for example a method based on the percentage of incoming 12th graders that finish out the year. Are there plans for such an update? High School Facilities Plan PURE Reform (May 2009) - When will a high school facilities plan complete with names and locations of buildings rather than general descriptions such as 3 comprehensive or 5 comprehensive schools be provided for public review and comment? In addition, it seems like some buildings may be ruled out for future use based on replacement cost compared to a general "build new" amount per square foot that does not consider the location or quality of the new building. Calculations and underlying assumptions of this cost comparison should be provided. When will the results of the March community dialogue held a month and a half ago be posted- at the meeting we were told they would be on the Building Excellence website. District Response (June 2009) - “The District hired the firm DeJong in January 2009, to conduct a Facilities study, the results will help us to form the basis of a plan for the District. The study is expected to be completed in August. It will include an evaluation of the condition of our facilities and take into account data on enrollment projections and input from the community and the Board. It also will provide recommendations on the best use of our facilities in order to accommodate existing and future academic programs in light of enrollment projections, facility conditions and costs.” PURE Reform (August 2009) - The District is using the “predecisional” exception of the RTKL for its consultants to withhold information on how it has calculated the cost to renovate specific buildings. However, just because it can withhold the information doesn’t mean that it should do so. Waiting to release information until a decision has already been made prevents the public from examining and verifying information prior to the decision. Incentive Programs for Students PURE Reform (March 2009) - Information should be provided on which school have incentive programs such as rewards for attendance at extra standardized test preparation, the amount of time being spent on these programs and the evidence that the District considered for and against this type of program. District Response (April 2009) – “The District does not have a formal policy in place regarding incentive programs. Each School building has a site based budget which school principals can choose to use nominal amounts for student incentives.” Magnet Lottery PURE Reform (March 2009) - Information should be provided as to who is developing these procedures, what type of parent and teacher input has been obtained, and what are the specific goeals that require a lottery different from one chance per applicant. District Response (June 2009) - A district team led by Cate Reed, Project Manager, engaged in a variety of stakeholder meetings to obtain input throughout the development of the new magnet process. The team conducted a survey with parents of students from current magnet programs. Additionally, there were group and one-on-one meetings. The District held two community forums this month; the first was held on April 7th at Pittsburgh Brashear, the second forum on April 9th, at Pittsburgh Allegheny. The proposed Magnet policy is available for public review at http://www.pps.k12.pa.us/1431105115023673/blank/browse.asp?a=383&BMDRN=2000 &BCOB=0&c=60190&1431105115023673Nav=\|&NodeID=4118 PURE Reform Response (August 2009) - There does not seem to have been any sort of public announcement at the start that this process was being undertaken, and the community forums (one of which coincided with both the second day of Passover and Good Thursday) were held during Spring Break. Changes to the proposal made after these meetings could be found only by checking the Agenda Review shortly before the Board vote. Pittsburgh Milliones (formerly called University Prep) PURE Reform (March 2009) - Details of the arrangement between PPS and the University of Pittsburgh do not seem to have been provided yet. District Response (April 2009) - “On June 3, 2008 the District entered into a Memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the University of Pittsburgh. The fundamental goal that every child finishing 12th grade at University Prep 6-12 building will be fully prepared for the entire spectrum of post-high school opportunities including the university and college degree programs, programs in community colleges and apprenticeships and skilled trades, the parties will implement programs to require high levels of literacy, numeracy, instill skills for self learning, perform collaborative work and develop communication skills. The school opened its doors during the 2008-09 school year, Pittsburgh Milliones 6-12 formerly known as University Prep embraces a total college going culture inside and outside the classroom. The University of Pittsburgh’s Helen Faison Center for Urban Education is located within the Milliones facility, creating a national center for excellence in public education right inside the building. The curriculum is driven by research but molded by each student’s individual goals and abilities. A small school environment provides support for the students below, on or above grade level and a continuum of interconnected support systems has been designed to help every student at Pittsburgh Milliones 6-12 access to advanced coursework and activities in order to succeed in a college preparatory sequence. All learners are expected to maintain high academic standards, believe in themselves, and graduate from high school to further their education.” PURE Reform (May 2009) - Although the administration responded with a general outline of the goals for the new University Prep school, what we are asking for are the details of the arrangement between PPS and the University of Pittsburgh. We were told that there is a Memorandum of Understanding between Pitt and the PPS, but were not presented with this memorandum or the details of the arrangement. District Response (June 2009) - The district provided a copy of a document labeled “Memorandum of Understanding Draft 07/03/08.” PURE Reform (August 2009) - As the school is now entering its second year, we would like to know when the arrangement with Pitt will be finalized and signed. Also, the memorandum has few programmatic details. When will the programmatic details be worked out? PSSA State/ PPS Gap PURE Reform (August 2009) - Has the district investigated how changes in PPS PSSA scores over the past four years compare to changes in PSSA scores statewide and if so, what were the findings? Reentry Programs PURE Reform (August 2009) - Where can a student who has dropped out of school find information on reentry programs? What outreach or publicity is in place to attract dropouts to reentry programs? Schenley Cost to Renovate PURE Reform (March 2009) - Information should be provided on whether the $40 million plan devised by the Schenley Building Task Force is acceptable and whether this figure is the figure that should be used when considering the cost to make Scheley available. District Response (April 2009) - “The scope 3B option proposed by the consultants involves limited abatement of asbestos containing materials (ACM) only in areas directly impacted by the removal of the building systems. This leaves ACM in the remainder of the building and does not accommodate expansion and/or reconfiguration of the existing classrooms to meet state requirements, curriculum needs or future programming Leaving ACM in place will complicate all future renovation/remodeling projects making them extremely expensive and time consuming. Concerns for safety/health/liability would continue to exist.” PURE Reform (August 2009) - The Schenley building’s classrooms met changing curriculum and programming needs for almost 100 years. The extent to which the classrooms may fail to meet current state requirements is unclear. However, it is important to note that many if not most of the district’s school buildings are unlikely ever to be remodeled to meet all of the requirements adopted after those schools were constructed. It would seem more reasonable to list the renovation cost as $42M with an asterisk indicating that for an additional $40M the building could be made easier to renovate again in the future. Finally, with any building there will be reasons for concerns for safety/health/liability. It is not clear what the safety/health/liability concerns for the Schenley building after a Scope 3B renovation would be. However, the fact that the McKelvy/Miller, Vann, Woolslair and Manchester buildings remained open for the 2008-2009 school year demonstrates that when it comes to asbestos, the district does not require elimination of all possible risk of safety/health/liability issues. Schenley Committee PURE Reform (April 2009) - In June of 2008 this school board voted to form a committee to examine the future of Schenley High School. To date that committee has not been formed. District Response (June 2009) - The Schenley Committee is on hold pending recommendations from the Building Excellence facilities study committee. These recommendations will be helpful in informing the Schenley Committee’s process. PURE Reform (August 2009) - The findings of a Schenley Committee would have been helpful in informing the facilities study committee’s recommendations. In any event, the facilities steering committee submitted its report and was disbanded by the June 22, 2009 Board workshop but the Schenley Committee still has not been formed. School Enrollment Figures PURE Reform (April 2009) - School enrollment information is no longer being updated monthly. We understand that an overhaul of the websites is planned to be completed for fall, but there does not seem to be any reason not to update information in the meantime. District Response (May 2009) - The server that extracts enrollment data was experiencing technical problems. The Office of Information and Technology indicates that the problem was resolved as of May 26, 2009. Stimulus Package Funds PURE Reform (March 2009) - It does not appear that information has been released as to what the district is doing to obtain school construction funds and what is being done to make projects shovel ready. There were promises made last summer to seek funding opportunities for the Schenley building so information on this issue should be provided. District Response (April 2009) - “The district is a recipient of The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding. ARRA funding is spread over two years with the bulk of the funding coming in increases in Title I, a program designed to promote literacy and mathematics for low-income students, and IDEA, a program for students with disabilities. Districts will start receiving funds in July of 2009 and the funds must be expended by the end of September 2011. Due to the progress we have made in implementing systemic improvements that are already raising student achievement and the budgetary discipline that the Board has shown in the last few years, we are in the advantageous position of being able to strategically apply these new resources to critical areas where additional effort should produce significant new gains, especially for struggling students. After careful evaluation of our academic goals, especially Promise Readiness, and our current student achievement, we have determined that ARRA funds will be best utilized by mounting a focused and intense effort to increase the literacy skills of our middle grade students. Our goal is to significantly increase the number of students who arrive at 9th grade with the skills to be successful in high school, thereby putting many more students on the Pathway to the Promise. For continued updates on the progress of our plan please visit our website at www.pss.k12.pa.us./stimulus.” PURE Reform (August 2009) -The administration responded with information regarding expenditure of the ARRA monies. However, this was a general overview similar to a presentation that had been made at an EFA meeting. The presentation nwas at http://www.pps.k12.pa.us/14311071716911330/blank/browse.asp?a=383&BMDRN=200 0&BCOB=0&c=62546&1431Nav=\|&NodeID=2556 but is “currently offline”. The District has provided general information focusing on Title 1 funds. We are requesting that the PPS follow the example of the State and Federal governments and post all expenditures that utilize ARRA money online. Also, information is still needed regarding what the district is doing to maximize school construct. Summer Literacy Camp PURE Reform (May 2009) - A large portion of ARRA funds will be spent on middle year summer programs. When will the details of the summery literacy camp be available? How will the district ensure that the students most in need of this program actually attend? District Response (June 2009) - The District recently hired Stimulus Utilization Program staff who will be developing the summer literacy camp. The District will make public the details when they become available.

Home

Announcements

Featured Topics

Three Year Review of District Initiatives

Questions About High School Reform

Blog

Links

Transparency
Watch

Transparency Watch

Transparency Watch is a tool for identifying and seeking important information related to Pittsburgh Public Schools which has not yet been provided to the public. Suggestions for additional topics are welcomed.

Topics:

ALA Parent Engagement Strategies

Asbestos Plaster Schools

CAS Elimination Closed Meetings

Committees

Community Education Partners (CEP)

Excellence for All Goals

Grade 6-12 Configuration

Graduation Rates

High School Facilities Plan

Incentive Programs for Students

Magnet Lottery

Pittsburgh Milliones (formerly called University Prep)

PSSA State/PPS Gap

Reentry Programs

Schenley Committee

Schenley Cost to Renovate

School Enrollment Figures

Stimulus Package Funds

Summer Literacy Camp

_________________________________________________________________________

ALA Parent Engagement Strategies

PURE Reform (April 2009) - We were told several months ago that an assessment of the parent engagement strategies at the ALAs was under way. We are anxious to get the results of that evaluation as parent engagement is essential to the success of our students. True parent engagement should be school-based, especially considering the population of PPS parents, many of whom must use public transportation. The movement towards a “school choice” model, if there is no local school option, will only serve to further disenfranchise parents with no access to schools that are located far from their homes.

District Response (May 2009) - The District provided a link to a report on the ALA’s presented at the January 2009 Education Committee meeting and noted that the District is not aware of an assessment of parent engagement strategies at the ALA’s.

PURE Reform (August 2009) – In PURE Reform's comments on the Strategic Plan submitted to the District in October 2008, for activity 1.10h PURE had asked “What are the results of the parent engagement efforts at the ALA’s?” The District’s response in November 2008 was, “The District is currently developing an external evaluation to assess this affect.”

Asbestos Plaster Schools:

PURE Reform (March 2009) - Clear information is needed when schools will be considered unsafe due to ACM issues. For example, over the last three months alone, at Vann Elementary there was an emergency clean up of falling ceiling plaster from the auditorium as well as removal of loose asbestos plaster in the library and in a classroom. Over 200 Pittsburgh residents have requested but not received a comparison of the condtion of the plaster at schools such as Vann to the plaster at Schenley.

District Response (April 2009) - “Our Facilities Division has summarized the condition of the plaster at Schenley vs. the plaster at other schools as follows: The vast majority of plaster problems at all other school can be attributed to water damage, including pipe leaks, roof leaks, or water infiltration. A substantial amount of plaster problems at Schenley cannot be attributed to water damage. There does not seem to be one simple cause for all of the plaster problems at Schenley. The building does have plaster damaged by the same water related problems mentioned above, but many plaster bubbles occurred in areas that could not be attributed to water sources. Reasons for all the plaster delamination problems at Schenley are not known, but some other suggested causes have included humidity problems, vibration and simple old age. Inspections of the plaster conditions at Baxter, Manchester, Miller/McKelvey are being conducted by independent consultants and are scheduled to be completed by the end of May.”

PURE Reform (August 2009) – As of mid July, no report of the inspections by independent consultants had been completed. The district’s attorneys state that a report will not be ready until late summer or early Fall. No reason was given for the delay or why it should take almost six months to perform these inspections.

Regarding a comparison between Schenley and other PPS with pervasive asbestos plaster, such as Mckelvey, Vann and Woolslair, all of these buildings and their plaster are of about the same age. A 1994 report shows that even at that time, a long list of rooms at McKelvy had 5-25% damaged plaster and needed repair. The main causes of plaster failure are well known: water damage, weather/humidity, and age, exacerbated by movement. In most cases records of plaster repair work at Mckelvy, Vann and Woolslair do not mention a water leak and so likely involved plaster bubbles and other unpredictable damage resulting from weather or age. A independent comparison of the plaster at Schenley v. the plaster at McKelvey, Vann and Wooslair would put questions to rest, but the distict has without explanation refused requests for such a comparison to be done.

PURE Reform (September 2009) - In the second half of August an inspection report from AGX was released showing asbestos plaster damage scattered throughout Vann, Miller/McKelvey and Woolslair. For some of the damage the cause is unknown. The district's indicates that the second report of inspections done last April is expected in mid-October and, when asked whether the report was given to the facilities consultant, refuses to answer.

PURE Reform (October 2009) - The district's attorney states that the report from the inspection done by a second consultant in April has not been received by the district and that the attorney has no other information. Given that 6 months have passed it can only be concluded that the district does not want the report. If the report was instead delivered to another consultant that would enable the district to claim not to have it.

CAS Elimination

PURE Reform (April 2009) - The PPS Parent hotline will not confirm or deny that elimination of CAS is being considered- they will only say that there are no plans at the current time to discontinue the program.

District Response (June 2009) - There are no plans to discontinue CAS programs.

PURE Reform (August 2009) - The District still has not confirmed or denied that elimination of CAS is being considered.

Committees

PURE Reform (April 2009) - The committee formed to examine the future of Peabody High School was by “invitation only”, shutting out many in the East End community. In addition, the public is not even permitted to observe these meetings.

District Response (May 2009) - The District stated that the Pittsburgh Peabody Committee was formed by the Superintendent and is “responsible for developing a plan to best serve the needs of students in the Pittsburgh Peabody feeder pattern.” The District stated that meetings were not open to the public.

PURE Reform (May 2009) - In the true spirit of transparency, committees that are formed by the administration to address various reform issues should include people with all perspectives and opinions. We request that the formation of these committees be announced in advance and that all stakeholders have an opportunity to participate and that these meetings be open for the public to observe.

District Response (June 2009) - “Typically, the Superintendent publically shares the recommendations of the committees. Every attempt is made to ensure that there is appropriate representation on committees established by the Administration in order to meet the needs of each committee’s work. Sometimes committee meetings will be open for the public to observe and sometimes they will not be open for the public to observe, depending on the nature of the work.”

PURE Reform (August 2009) - Is there any reason not to announce formation of committees in advance, and what exactly is “appropriate representation”- does it include those with opposing viewpoints? What situations require a closed committee? Why for example were meetings of the Pittsburgh Peabody committee closed and when will that committee’s report be released?

Community Education Partners (CEP)

PURE Reform (March 2009) - As of a month ago we were told that no evaluation was available on the performance of this very expensive school ($5M per year). Also, updated enrollment information does not seem to have been posted on the PPS website.

District Response (April 2009) - The district provided a copy of a March 2009 presentation made to a Board committee. These materials had also been posted on the PPS website. The link is http://www.pps.k12.pa.us/14311059122535553/lib/14311059122535553/ ClaytonAcademyEvaluation_v19.pdf) . It also noted that “no specific public record” exists in response to this request. It notes that the District’s review team and CEP have met annually to review individual students’ academic and behavioral performance.

Excellence for All Goals

PURE Reform (May 2009) - When will there be an update on how the district is doing regarding Excellence for All goals i.e. # of students taking AP exams, # of African American students taking AP exams, # of students scoring 3-5 on AP exams, # of students graduating?

District response (June 2009) - The District has not established a date for an update on the Excellence for All goals since all the data required is not yet available for example, the advanced placement test scores are not available until late July.

PURE Reform (August 2009) - What is the expected date for a report on EFA goals? Since the four year period for EFA PSSA goals has now passed, will updated EFA PSSA and other goals be established and if so, when?

Grade 6-12 Configuration

PURE Reform (March 2009) - We have not yet seen evidence supporting the benefits of this format.

District Response (April 2009) - The administration presented materials called “Case Studies of Schools Serving Students Grades 6-12.” These materials note that in New York City there are 88 schools for grades 6-12 or 7-12 and that in recent years certain 8th grade test scores have improved. The materials note that Rochester has some grade 7-12 schools and test scores have improved in recent years, and that Boston has three competitive-admission exam schools for grades 7-12. The materials note that Houston has five grade 6-12 charter prep schools.

PURE Reform Response (August 2009) - While these materials show that some systems have chosen grade 6-12 or 7-12 schools, no academic studies were cited to support the format. In fact, a study done at the Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy at Columbia University that shows that the 6-12 format has little impact on academic and non-academic student outcomes (http://iserp.columbia.edu/research-initiatives/working-paper-series/fresh-starts-school-form-and-student-outcomes ).

Graduation Rates

PURE Reform (August 2009) - Many people have expressed interest in an update on changes in graduation rates over the last four years using the RAND method rather than for example a method based on the percentage of incoming 12th graders that finish out the year. Are there plans for such an update?

High School Facilities Plan

PURE Reform (May 2009) - When will a high school facilities plan complete with names and locations of buildings rather than general descriptions such as 3 comprehensive or 5 comprehensive schools be provided for public review and comment? In addition, it seems like some buildings may be ruled out for future use based on replacement cost compared to a general "build new" amount per square foot that does not consider the location or quality of the new building. Calculations and underlying assumptions of this cost comparison should be provided. When will the results of the March community dialogue held a month and a half ago be posted- at the meeting we were told they would be on the Building Excellence website.

District Response (June 2009) - “The District hired the firm DeJong in January 2009, to conduct a Facilities study, the results will help us to form the basis of a plan for the District. The study is expected to be completed in August. It will include an evaluation of the condition of our facilities and take into account data on enrollment projections and input from the community and the Board. It also will provide recommendations on the best use of our facilities in order to accommodate existing and future academic programs in light of enrollment projections, facility conditions and costs.”

PURE Reform (August 2009) - The District is using the “predecisional” exception of the RTKL for its consultants to withhold information on how it has calculated the cost to renovate specific buildings. However, just because it can withhold the information doesn’t mean that it should do so. Waiting to release information until a decision has already been made prevents the public from examining and verifying information prior to the decision.

Incentive Programs for Students

PURE Reform (March 2009) - Information should be provided on which school have incentive programs such as rewards for attendance at extra standardized test preparation, the amount of time being spent on these programs and the evidence that the District considered for and against this type of program.

District Response (April 2009) – “The District does not have a formal policy in place regarding incentive programs. Each School building has a site based budget which school principals can choose to use nominal amounts for student incentives.”

Magnet Lottery

PURE Reform (March 2009) - Information should be provided as to who is developing these procedures, what type of parent and teacher input has been obtained, and what are the specific goeals that require a lottery different from one chance per applicant.

District Response (June 2009) - A district team led by Cate Reed, Project Manager, engaged in a variety of stakeholder meetings to obtain input throughout the development of the new magnet process. The team conducted a survey with parents of students from current magnet programs. Additionally, there were group and one-on-one meetings. The District held two community forums this month; the first was held on April 7th at Pittsburgh Brashear, the second forum on April 9th, at Pittsburgh Allegheny. The proposed Magnet policy is available for public review at http://www.pps.k12.pa.us/1431105115023673/blank/browse.asp?a=383&BMDRN=2000 &BCOB=0&c=60190&1431105115023673Nav=|&NodeID=4118

PURE Reform Response (August 2009) - There does not seem to have been any sort of public announcement at the start that this process was being undertaken, and the community forums (one of which coincided with both the second day of Passover and Good Thursday) were held during Spring Break. Changes to the proposal made after these meetings could be found only by checking the Agenda Review shortly before the Board vote.

Pittsburgh Milliones (formerly called University Prep)

PURE Reform (March 2009) - Details of the arrangement between PPS and the University of Pittsburgh do not seem to have been provided yet.

District Response (April 2009) - “On June 3, 2008 the District entered into a Memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the University of Pittsburgh. The fundamental goal that every child finishing 12th grade at University Prep 6-12 building will be fully prepared for the entire spectrum of post-high school opportunities including the university and college degree programs, programs in community colleges and apprenticeships and skilled trades, the parties will implement programs to require high levels of literacy, numeracy, instill skills for self learning, perform collaborative work and develop communication skills. The school opened its doors during the 2008-09 school year, Pittsburgh Milliones 6-12 formerly known as University Prep embraces a total college going culture inside and outside the classroom. The University of Pittsburgh’s Helen Faison Center for Urban Education is located within the Milliones facility, creating a national center for excellence in public education right inside the building. The curriculum is driven by research but molded by each student’s individual goals and abilities. A small school environment provides support for the students below, on or above grade level and a continuum of interconnected support systems has been designed to help every student at Pittsburgh Milliones 6-12 access to advanced coursework and activities in order to succeed in a college preparatory sequence. All learners are expected to maintain high academic standards, believe in themselves, and graduate from high school to further their education.”

PURE Reform (May 2009) - Although the administration responded with a general outline of the goals for the new University Prep school, what we are asking for are the details of the arrangement between PPS and the University of Pittsburgh. We were told that there is a Memorandum of Understanding between Pitt and the PPS, but were not presented with this memorandum or the details of the arrangement.

District Response (June 2009) - The district provided a copy of a document labeled “Memorandum of Understanding Draft 07/03/08.”

PURE Reform (August 2009) - As the school is now entering its second year, we would like to know when the arrangement with Pitt will be finalized and signed. Also, the memorandum has few programmatic details. When will the programmatic details be worked out?

PSSA State/ PPS Gap

PURE Reform (August 2009) - Has the district investigated how changes in PPS PSSA scores over the past four years compare to changes in PSSA scores statewide and if so, what were the findings?

Reentry Programs

PURE Reform (August 2009) - Where can a student who has dropped out of school find information on reentry programs? What outreach or publicity is in place to attract dropouts to reentry programs?

Schenley Cost to Renovate

PURE Reform (March 2009) - Information should be provided on whether the $40 million plan devised by the Schenley Building Task Force is acceptable and whether this figure is the figure that should be used when considering the cost to make Scheley available.

District Response (April 2009) - “The scope 3B option proposed by the consultants involves limited abatement of asbestos containing materials (ACM) only in areas directly impacted by the removal of the building systems. This leaves ACM in the remainder of the building and does not accommodate expansion and/or reconfiguration of the existing classrooms to meet state requirements, curriculum needs or future programming Leaving ACM in place will complicate all future renovation/remodeling projects making them extremely expensive and time consuming. Concerns for safety/health/liability would continue to exist.”

PURE Reform (August 2009) - The Schenley building’s classrooms met changing curriculum and programming needs for almost 100 years. The extent to which the classrooms may fail to meet current state requirements is unclear. However, it is important to note that many if not most of the district’s school buildings are unlikely ever to be remodeled to meet all of the requirements adopted after those schools were constructed. It would seem more reasonable to list the renovation cost as $42M with an asterisk indicating that for an additional $40M the building could be made easier to renovate again in the future. Finally, with any building there will be reasons for concerns for safety/health/liability. It is not clear what the safety/health/liability concerns for the Schenley building after a Scope 3B renovation would be. However, the fact that the McKelvy/Miller, Vann, Woolslair and Manchester buildings remained open for the 2008-2009 school year demonstrates that when it comes to asbestos, the district does not require elimination of all possible risk of safety/health/liability issues.

Schenley Committee

PURE Reform (April 2009) - In June of 2008 this school board voted to form a committee to examine the future of Schenley High School. To date that committee has not been formed.

District Response (June 2009) - The Schenley Committee is on hold pending recommendations from the Building Excellence facilities study committee. These recommendations will be helpful in informing the Schenley Committee’s process.

PURE Reform (August 2009) - The findings of a Schenley Committee would have been helpful in informing the facilities study committee’s recommendations. In any event, the facilities steering committee submitted its report and was disbanded by the June 22, 2009 Board workshop but the Schenley Committee still has not been formed.

School Enrollment Figures

PURE Reform (April 2009) - School enrollment information is no longer being updated monthly. We understand that an overhaul of the websites is planned to be completed for fall, but there does not seem to be any reason not to update information in the meantime.

District Response (May 2009) - The server that extracts enrollment data was experiencing technical problems. The Office of Information and Technology indicates that the problem was resolved as of May 26, 2009.

Stimulus Package Funds

PURE Reform (March 2009) - It does not appear that information has been released as to what the district is doing to obtain school construction funds and what is being done to make projects shovel ready. There were promises made last summer to seek funding opportunities for the Schenley building so information on this issue should be provided.

District Response (April 2009) - “The district is a recipient of The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding. ARRA funding is spread over two years with the bulk of the funding coming in increases in Title I, a program designed to promote literacy and mathematics for low-income students, and IDEA, a program for students with disabilities. Districts will start receiving funds in July of 2009 and the funds must be expended by the end of September 2011. Due to the progress we have made in implementing systemic improvements that are already raising student achievement and the budgetary discipline that the Board has shown in the last few years, we are in the advantageous position of being able to strategically apply these new resources to critical areas where additional effort should produce significant new gains, especially for struggling students. After careful evaluation of our academic goals, especially Promise Readiness, and our current student achievement, we have determined that ARRA funds will be best utilized by mounting a focused and intense effort to increase the literacy skills of our middle grade students. Our goal is to significantly increase the number of students who arrive at 9th grade with the skills to be successful in high school, thereby putting many more students on the Pathway to the Promise. For continued updates on the progress of our plan please visit our website at www.pss.k12.pa.us./stimulus.”

PURE Reform (August 2009) -The administration responded with information regarding expenditure of the ARRA monies. However, this was a general overview similar to a presentation that had been made at an EFA meeting. The presentation nwas at http://www.pps.k12.pa.us/14311071716911330/blank/browse.asp?a=383&BMDRN=200 0&BCOB=0&c=62546&1431Nav=|&NodeID=2556 but is “currently offline”. The District has provided general information focusing on Title 1 funds. We are requesting that the PPS follow the example of the State and Federal governments and post all expenditures that utilize ARRA money online. Also, information is still needed regarding what the district is doing to maximize school construct.

Summer Literacy Camp

PURE Reform (May 2009) - A large portion of ARRA funds will be spent on middle year summer programs. When will the details of the summery literacy camp be available? How will the district ensure that the students most in need of this program actually attend?

District Response (June 2009) - The District recently hired Stimulus Utilization Program staff who will be developing the summer literacy camp. The District will make public the details when they become available.