City schools' real issue
A+ Schools recently met with the Trib to discuss Pittsburgh's upcoming school board races and the growing community coalition supporting a vision for educational equity and excellence in our schools. Our conversation focused on the significant decisions facing the board and its far-reaching impact on Pittsburgh's children. So imagine our disappointment at the editorial “Pittsburgh schools' ‘progress': Sloppy practices” (April 2 and TribLIVE.com)!
We've seen measurable growth in many categories and grades in recent years, aside from last year's statewide dip in student achievement. Can more be done? Certainly! That's why this year's school board races are so critical.
Regarding attendance practices, readers should know that by law, all schools take attendance. What Pittsburgh Public Schools (PPS) is doing is using attendance data and other key indicators to monitor students at risk of dropping out to keep them on the path to graduation.
Additionally, the state now calculates graduation rates differently to more accurately reflect dropout rates — resulting in PPS and many school districts statewide reporting decreased graduation rates.
Pittsburgh's public schools face many challenges. We hope that everyone, especially school board candidates, will focus on addressing the real issue: educational equity and excellence for our children. Readers can learn more at aplusschools.org .
Carey A. Harris
The writer is executive director of A+ 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.