The A+ report: Face of failure
Nearly one-third, 31.5 percent, of Pittsburgh Public Schools students did not graduate in 2012.
An estimated 42 percent of seniors don't even carry a 2.5 grade-point average. That's a midlevel C.
For black students, that number is a shocking 61 percent. And the achievement gap between white and black students has grown.
Those are some of the lousy results from the latest annual district report card, as compiled by A+ Public Schools. It's pretty stunning what half-a-billion dollars a year won't buy. That's the district's annual budget ($522 million, to be precise).
And the declining performance comes even with a carrot at the end of a long string on a big stick — The Pittsburgh Promise, which guarantees college and/or training scholarships of $10,000 a year, even for decidedly mediocre students.
Oh, and the Pittsburgh district also is one of nine statewide being investigated for state testing “irregularities,” the educratic system's euphemism for cheating.
Outrageously, Superintendent Linda Lane proffers some weak if not shocking rationales for the declines.
Perhaps teachers fearing furloughs stopped doing their jobs, she effectively says.
Or perhaps they didn't sufficiently encourage students to do well on assessment tests, fearing it might violate state testing rules, Ms. Lane adds.
And perhaps a pack of dogs ate everyone's homework, too?
A harsh assessment. You bet. But no harsher than the failures of Pittsburgh Public Schools.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.