Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Regardless, this makes me think even more a PPS/Woodland Hills merger is a good idea. After all, with such a low proportion of children enrolled, the "buy-in" by voters to the district will probably be among the lowest in the county, since it means most adults either don't have school-age children or enroll them in private school. Arguments focusing on the ability of PPS to lower the overall tax burden (particularly for seniors on fixed incomes) would probably be more sufficient here, meaning arguments focusing upon access to magnet programs would be somewhat secondary.
I think you are on to something here. It is unfortunate, but if you make this about educating children better, you are more likely to run into resistance then if you instead focus on being able to lower people's taxes.
Incidentally, I do think you have to be careful about such arguments, since there is plenty of evidence that district consolidation does not always lead to financial savings. But it is very likely to be true in a few particular cases in the Pittsburgh area.
If I live in somewhere other than PA, and the local school handles kids who live within X miles of the school, how are the school's "resources" being used by people outside the area?
Perhaps not at that particular moment, but maybe so. Suppose your school also operates an IB program, and suppose the district allows transfers to special programs from outside its ordinary catchment area (Oregon, for example, recently passed legislation requiring this). In that case, that resource is shared by people outside the area.
Or again, suppose the high school principal was very successful and a real asset to the school, but the district superintendent decides her talents are needed at a higher level of administration - something much more likely in a larger district than one of PA's tiny ones. Again, that resource would be "shared".
Suppose the school had an Olympic-sized pool, the only one in the district. The district's swim team is made up of students drawn from all high schools, but practices at the one with the pool. Not something which can happen in PA, at least not without some inter-district planning and negotiation.
Quote:
I am arguing that at it's core its not that much different than other systems in place across the U.S.
And I agree, there are other states where these issues come to the surface and matter. However, given PA's extreme balkanization by comparison to states with similar systems, the issue is sharper here.
I'm not arguing that the PA "township" system is 100% fair, but I am arguing that at it's core its not that much different than other systems in place across the U.S.
For some odd reason, some people on this forum look at the townships as a negative. I am not sure why? People like them and move to certain townships. I think the people who don't like them are all city residents. Maybe they want to share in the wealth, or are upset because they can't get their child in a school that they want? I don't know, but those of use living in these townships, know where our kids are going to go to school. Many move to certain areas just to be in a certain elementary school or high school. Pittsburgh is more of a wild card for children. Not always, but lots of times people are trying to get their kids into a CAPA or whatever and they don't get them in. Townships don't have that going on. People LOVE their little towns in and around Pittsburgh. City residents, get over it. You are not going to swallow any up. People will fight that to death.
For some odd reason, some people on this forum look at the townships as a negative. I am not sure why? People like them and move to certain townships. I think the people who don't like them are all city residents. Maybe they want to share in the wealth, or are upset because they can't get their child in a school that they want? I don't know, but those of use living in these townships, know where our kids are going to go to school. Many move to certain areas just to be in a certain elementary school or high school. Pittsburgh is more of a wild card for children. Not always, but lots of times people are trying to get their kids into a CAPA or whatever and they don't get them in. Townships don't have that going on. People LOVE their little towns in and around Pittsburgh. City residents, get over it. You are not going to swallow any up. People will fight that to death.
Thank you, Curtis - you illustrate my point very well.
Thank you, Curtis - you illustrate my point very well.
Yes, I have, but you look at it as a negative and MOST look at the little places as a good thing. People like to know where their kids are going to school. I don't think you can fault people for that. Maybe you can?
The school district where I am located is plenty big. I see no advantage to FC to merge with anyone. Do you feel a school the size of FC should even get bigger? Why, so we can be better at a sport? No thanks.
Yes, I have, but you look at it as a negative and MOST look at the little places as a good thing. People like to know where their kids are going to school. I don't think you can fault people for that. Maybe you can?
You mean people like to know their kids are going to a good school, where they'll actually learn something and be prepared for the future? Of course - and of course no one can fault people for that.
But don't you think it seems a little Dickensian to insist that access to such a school should be limited to people who can afford to buy into an upper-middle class suburban district?
And to be clear, this is not bleeding-heart liberalism; my perspective is paternalist conservatism, if anything. Let there be the rich man in his castle and the poor man at his gate - but let there also be some reasonable chance for the poor man to educate his sons, if only to avoid breeding Dantons and Robespierres.
...school should be limited to people who can afford to buy into an upper-middle class suburban district?
Please name a district that can't be moved into in our region. Sharpsburg is cheaper than the city of Pittsburgh to move to. Millvale? There are homes in O'Hara for under $70K. Blawnox for around $30K. Etna? There are cheap places in Hampton. Verona is in Riverview School. Where are the poor shut off from in Pittsburgh? I can't think of anywhere except maybe the North Hills somewhere, but I don't even know about that. Pittsburgh's region has a wide variety of homes in most of the towns/regions around here. You might have a million dollar home on one street and a $100K on the next in the same school district. I don't feel you are looking at our city for what it is. We don't have fully exclusive neighborhoods like you are trying to paint. Sewickley has very poor areas as well. There are very few districts without poverty.
Yes, I have, but you look at it as a negative and MOST look at the little places as a good thing. People like to know where their kids are going to school. I don't think you can fault people for that. Maybe you can?
The school district where I am located is plenty big. I see no advantage to FC to merge with anyone. Do you feel a school the size of FC should even get bigger? Why, so we can be better at a sport? No thanks.
The argument isn't about sending more kids to Fox Chapel School District schools. At least it isn't for me. The argument is about putting more school feeder patterns under common administration, which will allow for more competitive offerings, such as specialized magnet schools.
Really though, FCSD is near the bottom of my list of concerns. I'm interested in the idea of school district mergers because I want the city to come back. Part of doing that is fixing "the school problem" Sadly, the school problem is in large part about perceptions - wealthy white parents think something is wrong with city schools, so they don't enroll here, thus the disproportionately poor and black schools do worse, which increases the perception they are bad, which causes yet more parents of means to withdraw...and so on down the line. If you could somehow convince all the yuppie breeders to enroll their kids in Woolslair (or something similar) at the same time, I have no doubt there would be a shocking improvement. Hell, I hear Phillips on the South Side is starting to get better for essentially that reason.
The only way to arrest this, I think, is to break schooling out of local feeder patterns, and to make competitive magnet options more central. This allows people to stay wherever they're comfortable - even if it's in the middle of the city - without fear of their child going to a substandard school.
Perhaps not at that particular moment, but maybe so. Suppose your school also operates an IB program, and suppose the district allows transfers to special programs from outside its ordinary catchment area (Oregon, for example, recently passed legislation requiring this). In that case, that resource is shared by people outside the area.
Or again, suppose the high school principal was very successful and a real asset to the school, but the district superintendent decides her talents are needed at a higher level of administration - something much more likely in a larger district than one of PA's tiny ones. Again, that resource would be "shared".
Suppose the school had an Olympic-sized pool, the only one in the district. The district's swim team is made up of students drawn from all high schools, but practices at the one with the pool. Not something which can happen in PA, at least not without some inter-district planning and negotiation.
And I agree, there are other states where these issues come to the surface and matter. However, given PA's extreme balkanization by comparison to states with similar systems, the issue is sharper here.
I'll agree that in general, resources being applied over a smaller population/neighboorhood/geographic area naturally lead to more exclusivity. But since America as a whole is a capitalist country, even in areas where the resources are spread over a larger area, pockets of exclusivity spring up within those areas, through increased real estate values being tied to the better schools, or homeowners associations paying for exclusive amenities, etc. The PA system just makes it seem more obvious since it is driven to be that way rather than letting the process occur more "naturally".
I think you are on to something here. It is unfortunate, but if you make this about educating children better, you are more likely to run into resistance then if you instead focus on being able to lower people's taxes.
Incidentally, I do think you have to be careful about such arguments, since there is plenty of evidence that district consolidation does not always lead to financial savings. But it is very likely to be true in a few particular cases in the Pittsburgh area.
Where is this evidence coming from? PA has had one merger (Center and Monaca in 2009) since the the federal court ordered merger of Woodland Hills in the 1970s, and the legislatively mandated consolidations of the 1960s.
PA has many opportunities for cost savings and performance improvements. Mergers don't have to mean the immediate closing of schools. Newly merged districts can study space and facility requirements over time to determine what makes sense. PA currently has fragmented districts with school busses traveling through other districts. Look at Johnstown, Uniontown and Greensburg to see examples of this inefficiency. This state has very small rural school districts that are forced to hire a superintendent to manage the district. That function could be spread across multiple small districts.
The last study that was done in PA to analyze consolidating Pennsylvania school districts was done in 2007 by Standard & Poors. That analysis showed a relationship between per-pupil spending and size of enrollment. At that time, PA had 57 districts with enrollment under 1,000 students and a total of 145 districts with enrollment under 1500 students. Another study done in 2009 forecast that about 90 percent of secondary schools in the western part of the state and more than 80 percent of secondary schools in the central region are more likely to be underenrolled over the next ten years. This study forecast an enrollment decline in western Pennsylvania of 16 percent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
