Open East End Planning/minutes of 01-29-10

Open East End Planning
==Meeting Summary from January 29, 2010==
In Attendence: Doug Rabuzzi, Regina Holley, Rev. Maureen Cross-Bolden, Rev. Regina Ragin, Pat Tucker, Stephanie Tezca, Mark Rauterkus, Rick Swartz, Marilyn Barnett, Marge McMackin, Kathy Fine, Annette Werner, Cheryl Walker, Randall Taylor, Andrea MacNeill, Amy Moore
===I. Brief review of Last Meeting===
Open East End Panel’s mission: to use research and panel dialogue to formulate several plans for configuration of the East End public schools. We will explore the limitations of 6-12 format and the need to avoid concentration of special needs and impoverished students.
===II. Discussion===
====a. single gender classrooms====
How are the single gender classes at Westinghouse going? Important to distinguish using single-gender in certain classrooms versus having an entire school (a la Ellis) as single-gender. 
The common wisdom is that single gender benefits girls. Some dissent that isolating boys and girls does not prepare them for the real world. Also some thinking that girls actually motivate boys to perform better. Opinion expressed that most parents choose single gender private schools for strong programs and as alternative to PPS, not necessarily for single gender.
Other opinions strongly in favor of single gender campuses as an option for the PPS.
We would recommend that the PPS research views of parents and students on this option. 
====b. importance of robust extracurricular activities offerings====
Data shows that extracurriculars/athletics help students perform better through identification with school. Title IX resulted in decrease in teen pregnancy and obesity in girls. (See data on Wiki page. Opinion expressed that small schools (Uprep, IB, sci Tech) will not have enough student to offer a variety of extracurriculars/athletics. For example, the small schools do not seem to be offering options such as a school newspaper or a wide range of sports. Others expressed the opinion that while a smaller school might have fewer choices, there could be depth allowing for example everyone who wanted to participate in basketball to do so. 
i. Data Request: list of extracurriculars/athletics at 6-12 versus comprehensive
===III. Overview of Data Sheets on School Choice Patterns (attached last week)===
=== IV. Middle and High School Configurations ===
a. Concern over the negativity about Westinghouse. WHS was a great HS in the past that has produced outstanding citizens, but also pointed out that students have many more choices these days and most are not choosing WHS. It was suggested that the school does not get the resources that it needs to succeed, but responses were that lack of resources is not the problem. We need to address social needs of students. We should be looking at what works (Neighborhood Academy, Imani)
b. IB at Peabody-panel member stated that students in the Peabody Feeder pattern will be able to choose Allderdice, but it was pointed out that many of these students would still be in mainstream classes at Dice.
c. Discussion of how Homewood parents asked for Sci Tech to be located at WHS but were told by the admin that it would not happen. An explanation given was that science labs at WHS were not large enough, but those familiar with the school stated that the science labs are huge. Agreed that if there is a strong program at WHS, students will choose it. Suggested that WHS should be “closed” and new program “reopened” at the facility. Pointed out that students were bussed to CAPA when it was in Homewood. Also suggested that any move of Sci Tech would have to involve engagement of parents/students currently enrolled at Frick facility. Should there be a 2nd Sci Tech at WHS? Can city and district negotiate a “violence free school zone” with members of the Homewood community.
d. Concern expressed that the Homewood community has stated that they do not want a 6-12 HS. They do want diversity and safety. 
e. We need to seriously devise a strong CTE program- In the East End WHS and Peabody HS would be good facilities. As an example, a very strong CTE program now in existence in Philadelphia is a possible model. General consensus that CTE is of the highest priority. Discussion of reports that Pittsburgh Promise funds may be used by students to obtain career training even before they graduate from high school; more information is needed on this.
f. Discussion of how popular programs such as sci tech and CAPA cannot accommodate all the students who wish to attend; are second science, IB or CAPA’s in another location possible? Or would these be “second class” programs? Discussion of how the racially and economically diverse schools are also the most popular.
g. Discussion of several configurations: I) CTE center at Peabody along w/ strong academics; WHS feeder students to to Peabody; Sci Tech moves to WHS so more students can benefit; IB 6-8 returns to Frick and option are explored for IB 9-12; II) II) Use of the Schenley building for 9-12 both U Prep and IB with 6-8 U Prep and Ib at Millions; III) Possible “All choice” model. Concern that students would disproportionately choose Allderdice. What programs would increase pull to various schools? General support for all choice to give all students the option of a comprehensive high school. Options to be revisited in light of upcoming school tours.
===V. PreK-5 Background Information===
Members of the group with knowledge in this area will be consulted to provide information regarding elementary configurations.
===VI. Discuss Facilities Tour-setting up a tour is in process.===