The idea that so many children are born into poverty in the wealthiest nation on Earth is heartbreaking enough. But the idea that a child may never be able to escape that poverty because she lacks a decent education or health care, or a community that views her future as their own, that should offend all of us and it should compel us to action.
We are a better country than this.
President Barack Obama
December 4, 2013
As a public school teacher in a high poverty school in Philadelphia, a typical day was an emotional rollercoaster. My students would inspire me with their wit and intelligence, yet I’d return home feeling powerless because of my inability to truly meet their needs. My colleagues would inspire me with their relentlessness and determination, but we’d collectively feel enraged by the system’s propensity to leave many children behind.
The fine line between inspiration and anger, hope and outrage, is reflected in the report you are about to read.
In this report, we analyzed data from all 102 high poverty schools in Allegheny County and identified those schools that are consistently breaking the link between poverty and achievement and providing all students, regardless of background, the opportunity to thrive.
Fittingly, we call these schools “Opportunity Schools.”
As you read this report, you won’t feel defeated. You’ll feel hopeful. Our thesis statement is simple: Allegheny County has schools that are high poverty AND high-performing.
In fact, there are six. And there are another 15 schools that are almost there. These great schools deserve both acknowledgement and analysis. Our report provides both.
At cocktail parties and family gatherings, I often struggle to answer a very basic question, “What do you do?” My typical answer is, “I’m the executive director of a non-profit that weaves research, communications, and lobbying to support policies that ensure all children have access to the quality education they deserve.” But the simpler, more honest answer is, “I’m trying to change the conversation.”
With this report, I hope to change the conversation in Allegheny County from “Can poor kids be expected to achieve at extraordinary levels?” to “What can we do to replicate the success of these Opportunity Schools to ensure that all students have access to a high-quality education?”
Jonathan Cetel
Executive Director, PennCAN
In our country, there is no greater predictor of academic achievement and attainment than a student’s socioeconomic status. This is not a new phenomenon. Decades of research substantiate the large and intractable achievement gap between children from low-income households and their peers from higher-income families. What is noteworthy, however, is that our income achievement gap has grown significantly over the last few decades. Education inequality has gotten worse, not better.1
Meanwhile, jobs in the United States increasingly require higher levels of education. Gone are the days when a high school diploma guaranteed a job at the mills and a chance at a middle class life. Since the recession began in 2007, the number of jobs requiring a college degree in the United States has risen by 2.2 million, whereas the number of jobs for high-school graduates has fallen by 5.8 million.2
This trend toward more jobs requiring some kind of postsecondary education is projected to continue. By 2020, workers with postsecondary education will hold 65 percent of the jobs compared to only 59 percent of jobs in 2010.3 Moreover, the jobs that do exist for less-educated workers pay significantly less than they used to.4
Thus, at the same time that family income has become more predictive of academic achievement, academic attainment has become increasingly essential to economic success. Rather than being the great equalizer, our education system is helping perpetuate a vicious cycle that is creating more income disparity and a more unequal society.
Like the nation as a whole, Allegheny County has a significant income achievement gap–students from wealthier school districts are thriving academically while students from poorer school districts are lagging far behind. One of the major barriers to ensuring strong educational outcomes for these students is a lack of access to high-quality schools that effectively serve low-income students.
However, there is hope. In Allegheny County, there are a handful of schools proving that poverty is not destiny. In this report we celebrate six extraordinary high poverty schools that are consistently breaking the link between poverty and low student achievement. We call them Opportunity Schools because they are providing all children, regardless of socio-economic status, the opportunity to excel academically. We also identified 15 additional On-the-Cusp Schools, which fell just short of the criteria to be considered Opportunity Schools.
The purpose of this report is:
We need to fundamentally reimagine how our public school system serves low-income children. While other anti-poverty efforts need to be integrated with education efforts, providing high-quality education is absolutely essential to breaking the cycle of poverty for children born into low-income households. If we are committed to preparing all children for the challenges of the 21st century economy and giving them a fair chance at a successful life, we must work together and find the will to make every school in Allegheny County an Opportunity School.
Reardon, Sean F., “Whither Opportunity?: Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children's Life Chances,” New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2011. Print. http://cepa.stanford.edu/content/widening-academic-achievement-gap-between-rich-and-poor-new-evidence-and-possible. “College Graduates Lead National Job Growth Recovery, New Georgetown Study Finds,” Lumina Foundation, Washington: Center on Education and the Workforce, 2012. Print. https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/3.16.15_College-Advantage-Press-Release1.pdf. Carnevale, Anthony P., Nicole Smith, and Jeff Strohl, “Recovery: Job Growth and Education Requirements through 2020,” Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce, https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Recovery2020.ES_.Web_.pdf. Irwin, Neil, "Why American Workers Without Much Education Are Being Hammered," The New York Times, April 21, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/upshot/why-workers-without-much-education-are-being-hammered.html.Where a family can afford to live should not determine the quality of education afforded to their children. However, that is the reality for most of Allegheny County’s poorest families. Out of 43 school districts in Allegheny County, there are 11 high poverty districts5 educating almost 45,000 children. Not surprisingly, these 11 districts are the worst performing districts in the county, and in some cases, among the worst performing districts in the entire state. Out of 496 Pennsylvania school districts rated in a 2013 study, 10 of Allegheny County’s high poverty school districts performed in the bottom 10 percent of the state, and four of those districts performed in the bottom two percent of the state.6 In the aggregate, only 56 percent of all students in these 11 high poverty districts are proficient in math and only 51 percent of all students are proficient in reading. The proficiency rates for just economically disadvantaged students are predictably even lower—only 50 percent of low-income students in these 11 high poverty districts are proficient in math and only 45 percent are proficient in reading. In fact, the proficiency rates in these 11 districts are lower than proficiency rates for economically disadvantaged students for the state as a whole–six percentage points lower in math and nine percentage points lower in reading.
The results in these 11 high poverty districts are even bleaker when you look only at race. Of the nearly 24,000 black students (most of whom also fall into the low-income category based on the demographics of the districts), only 44 percent are proficient in math and just 40 percent are proficient in reading. Again, these proficiency rates are lower than proficiency rates for black students for the state as a whole.
Meanwhile, in Allegheny County’s higher-income districts,7 the educational outcomes of students are drastically different. In the county’s 32 higher-income districts, 84 percent of the students are proficient in math and 83 percent are proficient in reading. This is 28 and 32 percentage points higher than the 11 high poverty districts for math and reading, respectively. Out of these 32 higher-income districts, 26 outperformed the state average in both reading math.
This gross disparity in educational outcomes between poorer and wealthier districts is not simply a matter of equity; it poses a threat to this region’s economic vitality. The number of children living in poverty in the Pittsburgh region has steadily risen since 2000. Today, approximately one in six children in the region is living in poverty, up nearly six percent since 2000.8 Like the nation as a whole, Allegheny County is facing a looming shortfall of college-educated and technically trained workers.9 Thus, this region’s economy is dependent on creating a highly educated work force, which can only happen if we provide better educational opportunities for all students, not just those who live in the right zip code.
On the following pages we have included a snapshot of the 11 high poverty districts that includes both demographic and achievement data.
In our search to identify Opportunity Schools in Allegheny County, we wanted to use a meaningful metric that would recognize those schools that are consistently proving that poverty is not a barrier to academic success. After careful consideration, we arrived at the following definition for an Opportunity School:10
In the subsequent pages, we will feature each school and delve into the practices and approaches that are leading these schools to success.
We acknowledge that beyond student performance on standardized assessments, there are several other factors that contribute to school quality. We believe, however, that our definition identifies schools that measurably provide children from low-income households the opportunity to overcome the normal correlation between socioeconomic status and performance on standardized tests. In other words, given the statewide data that is and is not available, we believe that our definition shows which Allegheny County programs are providing children from low-income households a high-quality education. As explained more thoroughly in the Methodology section of this report, a “high poverty school” is any school that has at least 60 percent or more students who are economically disadvantaged.| Elementary School Programs | Principal | School District | School Type | |||
| Propel East | Sandra Gough and Mike Evans, Co-Principals | Woodland Hills | Public Charter | |||
| Urban League of Greater Pittsburgh Charter School | Gail Edwards | Pittsburgh | Public Charter | |||
| Verner Elementary School | Jason Shoaf (Former principal) | Riverview | Traditional Public |
| Middle School Programs | Principal | School District | School Type | |||
| Propel McKeesport | Lauren DiMartino | McKeesport | Public Charter | |||
| Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy | Shawn McNeil | Pittsburgh | Magnet |
| High School Programs | Principal | School District | School Type | |||
| Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy | Shawn McNeil | Pittsburgh | Magnet | |||
| Barack Obama Academy of International Studies | Wayne Walters | Pittsburgh | Magnet |
NOTE: We reference elementary, middle or high school “programs” instead of “elementary, middle or high schools” because, for the purposes of this report, we studied each program separately, even when multiple programs are part of the same school.
PennCAN set the bar for Opportunity Schools high enough to justify our claim that they repeatedly break the link between income and achievement. Still, many Allegheny County schools just missed the cutoff. We believe it is important to recognize these schools, learn from their success and understand from their leaders what they need to become Opportunity Schools.
We have designated the next group of schools as On-the-Cusp Schools. After careful consideration, we arrived at the following definition. An On-the-Cusp School is:
| Elementary School Programs | Principal | School District | School Type | Total Enrollment | Percent Economically Disadvantaged | |||||
| Carnegie Elementary School | Carla Hudson | Carlynton | Traditional public | 427 | 63% | |||||
| Elroy Avenue Elementary School | Barbara Pagan | Brentwood Borough | Traditional public | 324 | 61% | |||||
| Manchester Academic Charter School | Vasilios Scoumis | Pittsburgh | Public Charter | 274 | 81% | |||||
| Pittsburgh Allegheny K-5 | Molly O'Malley-Argueta | Pittsburgh | Magnet | 532 | 87% | |||||
| Pittsburgh Beechwood K-5 | Sally Rifugiato | Pittsburgh | Traditional public | 421 | 75% | |||||
| Pittsburgh Greenfield K-8 | Eric Rosenthall | Pittsburgh | Traditional public | 379 | 70% | |||||
| Pittsburgh Liberty K-5 | Mark McClinchie | Pittsburgh | Magnet | 409 | 70% | |||||
| Pittsburgh Linden K-5 | Victoria Burgess | Pittsburgh | Magnet | 384 | 71% | |||||
| Pittsburgh Phillips K-5 | Kevin L Bivins | Pittsburgh | Partial Magnet | 302 | 66% | |||||
| Propel Montour | Matt Strine and Jamie Chlystek | Montour | Public charter | 404 | 66% | |||||
| Woodland Hills Academy | Kelly Berthold | Woodland Hills | Traditional public | 483 | 61% |
| Middle School Programs | Principal | School District | School Type | Total Enrollment | Percent Economically Disadvantaged | |||||
| Highlands MS | Charles Mort | Highlands | Traditional public | 551 | 64% | |||||
| Propel Montour | Matt Strine and Jamie Chlystek | Montour | Public charter | 404 | 66% | |||||
| Pittsburgh Brookline K-8 | John Vater | Pittsburgh | Traditional public | 609 | 67% | |||||
| Pittsburgh Carmalt K-8 | Sandra Och | Pittsburgh | Magnet | 598 | 76% |
| High School Programs | Principal | School District | School Type | Total Enrollment | Percent Economically Disadvantaged | |||||
| City Charter High School | Ron Sofo | Pittsburgh | Public charter | 643 | 69% |
After identifying the Opportunity and On-the-Cusp Schools, PennCAN reached out to the principals of each school and visited each Opportunity School. We asked them about the in-school best practices they use to lead their students to success. After culling through the responses, we have identified five of the key characteristics that define these poverty-defying schools.
Great schools start with great leaders. It is a necessary but not sufficient component of success. Like a great sports coach, a leader sets a vision and recruits, develops, and retains a talented team to execute that vision. At Propel, co-principal Sandy Gough humbly attributed her school’s success to Propel’s hardworking and dedicated teachers, but she acknowledged the critical role she played in recruiting those teachers.
Principals used to be the chief administrator of a school, ensuring that textbooks were purchased, buses ran on time, and discipline was handed out swiftly and fairly. In a departure from this model, the Opportunity School leaders saw themselves as instructional leaders, primarily responsible for coaching teachers to constantly improve their practice. At Obama, it means that the principal, Dr. Wayne Walters, built the curricular framework and school model and is responsible for making sure his staff is prepared to teach the school’s rigorous International Baccalaureate program. At Propel McKeesport, it means Principal Lauren DiMartino is constantly in the classroom, doing at least five teacher observations each week and providing constant feedback to teachers. At Verner Elementary School, teachers are accustomed to the principal coming into their classrooms every day. At Propel East, the principal sits in on every meeting to discuss a student’s Individualized Education Plan to ensure that teachers are providing the services the child needs. At ULGPCS, it means that the principal, who has been there for 14 years, knows every student and all of their family members.
There is a myth that great principals are like military generals: fierce, humorless, and authoritative. In our interviews with the Opportunity School principals, we observed very different personalities. Some were stern and demanding, others were nurturing and collaborative. But what they all shared was a strong vision and an unapologetic relentlessness to get results.
By definition, all six Opportunity Schools had a student population that was at least 60 percent economically disadvantaged. Every school described the immense challenges their students face, but they all had asset-based perspectives on their work. Leaders continuously emphasized what their students were capable of instead of describing the deficits. They all had the same bold attitude that was imbued throughout the schools’ cultures: that every single student could and would learn.
In the Riverview school district, there are two elementary schools–Opportunity School Verner Elementary School and a much more affluent school. Yet the administration scoffed when asked if the students are treated differently at the two schools. “We don’t change the rules of the game–same curriculum, same expectations.” At Verner Elementary School, every student has his or her own education plan called the Riverview Customized Education Plan, something that is usually only provided to gifted students or students with disabilities. The expectation is that every student will meet personal growth goals, and the school feels they have a “moral obligation” for meeting that goal.
At Obama, the rigorous IB curriculum is incredibly challenging. Kids often complain to the principal that they would have a higher GPA if they attended their neighborhood school. Yet, many of those same students return to Obama with the message for current students that college is much easier than they expected thanks to the demanding workload they faced in high school.
To be innovative and adaptable to the needs of students, schools need flexibility. The original promise of charter schools was to provide more autonomy in exchange for more accountability. In fact, the earliest pioneers of the charter movement were teachers unions in New York City who wanted freedom from the red tape of the NYC Department of Education. Specifically, charter schools have autonomy over their budget, curriculum, and personnel. This means that ULGPCS can increase the length of their school year from 180 days 210 days; Propel Schools can build innovative partnerships, like the Pittsburgh Urban Teaching Corps, to increase the diversity of its workforce and have content-specific teaching coaches at every school; and City Charter High School, an On-the-Cusp School, can loop students with the same team of teachers for all four years of high school, creatively allocate resources to hire 11 teaching associates to support all faculty in differentiating instruction, and have a competency-based promotion system for all faculty.
It is widely known that charter schools have these freedoms. What is less widely known is that Pittsburgh Public Schools has afforded some important freedoms to its magnet schools. SciTech, for instance, is afforded a special provision in the collective bargaining agreement to exempt its teachers from seniority-based layoffs. As a new school with bold and innovative plans, the school aggressively recruited content experts and career changers with advanced degrees. Knowing that continuity is key to success and that new teachers are vulnerable to layoffs, the school feared that a traditional contract threatened their model. The school district successfully negotiated a carve-out from the seniority system that governs other Pittsburgh public schools in order to ensure the quality of its teaching staff.
If we are serious about building more Opportunity Schools, we must give ALL schools–not just charter and magnet schools–the ability to be exempt from mandates and work-rules. In one of our interviews with an On-the-Cusp School, a principal cited burdensome work rules in the teacher contract as a key factor holding schools back from serving students well.
Without exception, every principal cited “data-driven instruction” as a source of the schools’ successes. This has become something of a buzzword in education, but data is simply a string of numbers if it is not used to constantly monitor and inform instruction.
Here’s an overview of how Propel Mckeesport uses data: At the beginning of the year, the leadership team meets with teachers and sets data targets that include PSSA scores, benchmark assessments, attendance, and discipline referrals. Those targets are posted throughout the school and referred to throughout the year. The leadership team has data meetings twice a trimester to assess progress made towards these goals. At the classroom level, teachers use formative data to create instructional groups on the spot. For example, in 3rd and 4th grades, students will have a mini-lesson on a certain skill. Students will then do a problem-of-the-day, based on the skill taught. The teachers will then quickly group students based on their success on that particular problem. In 5th and 6th grades, the math teacher gives students weekly assessments aligned with state standards, and the data that is collected from these weekly tests determines the focus of the math centers for the week.
Even though all of the Opportunity Schools are relentlessly focused on academic outputs, none view their core missions as getting students to be proficient on exams. Rather their priority is to maximize the potential of each student by building meaningful, authentic relationships with students and families. At SciTech, that means a daily period devoted to enrichment activities of mutual interest to students and teachers, where students can develop relationships with teachers outside of a strictly academic setting. At Propel East, it means creating a culture where parents and students feel comfortable calling teachers on evenings and weekends to ask questions. Unsurprisingly, Propel East has nearly a 100 percent participation rate in parent/teacher conferences. At ULGPCS, teachers do home visits in the fall. At Obama, the school hosts special events to increase parent engagement. At Verner, when asked how to describe their school culture, they said it is “a family where kids come first.”
The bottom line is that these schools get amazing test scores because of and not at the expense of meaningful relationships and engagement with students and parents. These schools understand that strong relationships help them to effectively identify and meet the needs of students. In what sounds paradoxical, but makes complete sense to educators, these schools have great test scores because they focus on so much more than just test scores.
The public education system in Allegheny County is plagued by an income and racial achievement gap that undermines the region’s economic competitiveness and robs students of the most precious feature of our democratic ideals: opportunity. The schools celebrated in this report provide proof that zip code does not have to equal destiny. They highlight that great schools operating under the right conditions can overcome the deleterious impacts of poverty. In other words, these schools give students an opportunity.
The six Opportunity Schools and 15 On-the-Cusp Schools should elicit praise for the heroic work they are doing and outrage for how few of them there are. In Allegheny County, there are 102 high poverty schools. A student in a high poverty school has only a 1 in 17 chance of attending an Opportunity School. There are no open enrollment public high schools that met the criteria for an Opportunity School, and only one open enrollment high school, City Charter High School, met the criteria to be named an On-the-Cusp School. Of the 11 high poverty districts, only four districts had at least one Opportunity School.
Given the data presented throughout this report, it is impossible to deny the importance of learning from the schools that are beating the odds. This is why PennCAN recommends learning from the five features that all of these distinguished schools share: a great leader, high standards and high expectations, autonomy, data-driven instruction, and deep relationships with students and families.
We are hopeful for a day when all schools share these attributes and “Opportunity Schools” are the norm and not the exception. But we aren’t naïve enough to believe that this will happen just by hoping. We need concerned citizens and stakeholders to take action and demand change. We know that creating poverty-defying schools is possible; we just need the collective will to make it happen.
Throughout this report, we have emphasized our goal of celebrating Allegheny County schools that are repeatedly breaking the link between income and achievement by leading students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds to achieve at high levels. We recognize, however, that it is possible to define “repeatedly breaking the link” and “achieve at high levels” in a number of ways.
In settling on a definition, we sought to offer an intuitive set of criteria and to set the bar high enough that we feel comfortable claiming any schools that meet our criteria are truly defying the odds for students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Our criteria meet these objectives.
A school was named an Opportunity School if it met the following criteria:
A school was named an On-the-Cusp School if it met the following criteria:
For the purposes of this report, we started from the federal definition of high poverty schools found in No Child Left Behind. According to the legislation, high poverty schools are those in the top poverty quartile in the state.16 In Pennsylvania, this includes all schools with approximately 61 percent or more economically disadvantaged students. Using this definition as a starting point, and for ease of reporting and clarity, we ultimately considered any school with 60 percent or more economically disadvantaged students to meet the high poverty criteria.
In Pennsylvania, the overall state proficiency rates are high, but not insurmountable. In addition, requiring that schools meet this threshold in over half of tested grades and in both core subjects ensures that students are consistently receiving a high-quality education. Finally, requiring schools to replicate success over multiple years suggests that their success is not just a function of statistical noise or one particularly motivated or high-skilled cohort of students.
In this report, we also made a decision to treat combined elementary/middle schools as two separate schools (K-5 and 6-8) and combined middle/high schools as two separate schools (6-8 and 9-12). This decision ensured that each school received an equal opportunity to meet the criteria and that we were comparing similar data.
Proficiency rates were taken from the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 Required Federal Reporting Measures.17 Data in these reports was also utilized to calculate the performance of students who are not economically disadvantaged, and the income and race proficiency gaps. Demographic data, attendance rates and graduation rates were taken from the 2013-2014 Pennsylvania School Performance Profiles.18 School safety data came from the 2013-2014 Safe Schools Reports.19 Student stability rates came from the 2014 A+ Schools Report to the Community0 as well as survey responses from the Opportunity Schools. Per-pupil spending data for individual school districts came from 2012-2013 summary level Expenditure Data published by the Pennsylvania Department of Education.0 Finally, college matriculation rates were found in the 2012-2013 Graduates Public by School report.20
| Total Enrollment | % ED | Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced Math | Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced Reading | |||||
| Duquesne City | 366 | 100% | 20% | 19% | ||||
| Clairton City | 785 | 90% | 46% | 41% | ||||
| Sto-Rox | 1419 | 85% | 34% | 33% | ||||
| Pittsburgh | 26041 | 77% | 59% | 54% | ||||
| Woodland Hills | 3846 | 77% | 54% | 51% | ||||
| Wilkinsburg Borough | 932 | 76% | 35% | 27% | ||||
| McKeesport Area | 3507 | 69% | 50% | 46% | ||||
| East Allegheny | 1692 | 68% | 58% | 54% | ||||
| Cornell | 646 | 65% | 59% | 59% | ||||
| Steel Valley | 1647 | 64% | 57% | 55% | ||||
| Penn Hills | 3908 | 60% | 55% | 54% | ||||
| Highlands | 2500 | 59% | 68% | 64% | ||||
| South Allegheny | 1572 | 55% | 63% | 64% | ||||
| Brentwood | 1181 | 53% | 76% | 78% | ||||
| Carlynton | 1429 | 50% | 78% | 72% | ||||
| West Mifflin | 2996 | 50% | 68% | 67% | ||||
| Northgate | 1228 | 49% | 70% | 70% | ||||
| Allegheny Valley | 991 | 42% | 71% | 74% | ||||
| Riverview | 1031 | 40% | 81% | 81% | ||||
| Gateway | 3498 | 37% | 71% | 73% | ||||
| Elizabeth Forward | 2355 | 35% | 82% | 78% | ||||
| Shaler | 4629 | 35% | 78% | 77% | ||||
| Baldwin-Whitehall | 4117 | 34% | 84% | 80% | ||||
| Keystone Oaks | 1987 | 31% | 82% | 78% | ||||
| North Hills | 4248 | 28% | 86% | 85% | ||||
| Chartiers | 3370 | 26% | 80% | 77% | ||||
| Deer Lakes | 2008 | 26% | 77% | 74% | ||||
| Plum | 3975 | 23% | 83% | 83% | ||||
| South Park | 1968 | 22% | 82% | 79% | ||||
| Montour | 2802 | 21% | 86% | 86% | ||||
| West Allegheny | 3258 | 19% | 85% | 84% | ||||
| Fox Chapel | 4245 | 18% | 88% | 87% | ||||
| West Jefferson | 2831 | 17% | 87% | 88% | ||||
| Moon | 3723 | 16% | 87% | 86% | ||||
| Avonsworth | 1541 | 14% | 81% | 86% | ||||
| Quaker Valley | 1960 | 14% | 87% | 86% | ||||
| Bethel Park | 4452 | 12% | 88% | 85% | ||||
| South Fayette | 2793 | 12% | 95% | 93% | ||||
| Hampton | 3027 | 11% | 92% | 91% | ||||
| Mt. Lebanon | 5244 | 9% | 92% | 92% | ||||
| Pine-Richland | 4621 | 7% | 90% | 89% | ||||
| Upper St. Clair | 4133 | 7% | 90% | 90% | ||||
| North Allegheny | 8281 | 6% | 89% | 89% |
NOTE: Districts sorted by percentage of economically disadvantaged students.
| Grade: Elementary | Carnegie El Sch | Elroy Avenue El Sch | Manchester Academic CS | Pittsburgh Allegheny K-5 | Pittsburgh Beechwood K-5 | Pittsburgh Greenfield K-8 | Pittsburgh Liberty K-5 | Pittsburgh Linden K-5 | Pittsburgh Phillips K-5 | Propel Montour | Woodland Hills Academy | ||||||||||||||
| Demographics % | Economically Disadvantaged | 63 | 61 | 81 | 87 | 75 | 70 | 70 | 71 | 66 | 66 | 61 | |||||||||||||
| Black | 17 | 6 | 96 | 70 | 16 | 23 | 70 | 65 | 33 | 33 | 53 | ||||||||||||||
| White | 68 | 87 | 2 | 18 | 49 | 55 | 16 | 26 | 54 | 57 | 41 | ||||||||||||||
| Total Percentage of Students Proficient or Advanced | 3rd Grade Math | All Students | 78 | 80 | 58 | 88 | 78 | 58 | 88 | 64 | 82 | 72 | 78 | ||||||||||||
| Economically Disadvantaged | 68 | 79 | 55 | 86 | 77 | 53 | 80 | 59 | 76 | 62 | 70 | ||||||||||||||
| Black | 73 | NA | 58 | 85 | NA | NA | 80 | 50 | 62 | 53 | 69 | ||||||||||||||
| White | 80 | 83 | NA | 94 | 89 | 50 | 100 | 100 | 89 | 84 | 92 | ||||||||||||||
| 3rd Grade Reading | All Students | 69 | 72 | 60 | 65 | 72 | 75 | 68 | 52 | 78 | 72 | 69 | |||||||||||||
| Economically Disadvantaged | 55 | 66 | 55 | 63 | 74 | 76 | 57 | 41 | 70 | 66 | 57 | ||||||||||||||
| Black | 55 | NA | 60 | 57 | NA | NA | 54 | 38 | 69 | 53 | 59 | ||||||||||||||
| White | 74 | 71 | NA | 82 | 74 | 75 | 93 | 92 | 75 | 84 | 84 | ||||||||||||||
| 4th Grade Math | All Students | 85 | 82 | 88 | 85 | 81 | 80 | 74 | 77 | 80 | 71 | 61 | |||||||||||||
| Economically Disadvantaged | 82 | 73 | 89 | 83 | 81 | 82 | 68 | 60 | 64 | 64 | 57 | ||||||||||||||
| Black | NA | NA | 91 | 82 | NA | NA | 67 | 67 | 53 | 80 | 71 | ||||||||||||||
| White | 92 | 79 | NA | 93 | 90 | 83 | NA | 100 | 100 | 72 | 42 | ||||||||||||||
| 4th Grade Reading | All Students | 70 | 76 | 71 | 71 | 65 | 72 | 66 | 66 | 66 | 82 | 61 | |||||||||||||
| Economically Disadvantaged | 68 | 65 | 72 | 68 | 67 | 73 | 58 | 43 | 54 | 76 | 50 | ||||||||||||||
| Black | NA | NA | 68 | 64 | NA | NA | 57 | 52 | 42 | 80 | 67 | ||||||||||||||
| White | 75 | 79 | NA | 93 | 80 | 82 | NA | 100 | 86 | 84 | 50 | ||||||||||||||
| 5th Grade Math | All Students | 82 | 71 | 67 | 62 | 52 | 72 | 76 | 67 | 68 | 67 | 78 | |||||||||||||
| Economically Disadvantaged | 73 | 69 | 67 | 59 | 42 | 67 | 62 | 52 | 63 | 50 | 69 | ||||||||||||||
| Black | NA | NA | 63 | 58 | 36 | NA | 65 | 48 | 67 | 33 | 70 | ||||||||||||||
| White | 96 | 73 | NA | 60 | 66 | 92 | NA | 93 | 71 | 76 | 82 | ||||||||||||||
| 5th Grade Reading | All Students | 62 | 73 | 58 | 53 | 43 | 55 | 59 | 58 | 56 | 65 | 57 | |||||||||||||
| Economically Disadvantaged | 52 | 69 | 61 | 48 | 36 | 43 | 38 | 34 | 48 | 50 | 42 | ||||||||||||||
| Black | NA | NA | 53 | 53 | 36 | NA | 44 | 34 | 42 | 42 | 50 | ||||||||||||||
| White | 70 | 73 | NA | 50 | 56 | 75 | NA | 93 | 63 | 72 | 68 | ||||||||||||||
| Grade: Middle | Highlands MS | Propel Montour | Pittsburgh Brookline K-8 | Pittsburgh Carmalt K-8 | |||||||
| Demographics % | Economically Disadvantaged | 64 | 66 | 67 | 76 | ||||||
| Black | 9 | 33 | 10 | 43 | |||||||
| White | 86 | 57 | 79 | 43 | |||||||
| Total Percentage of Students Proficient or Advanced | 6th Grade Math | All Students | 70 | 72 | 67 | 62 | |||||
| Economically Disadvantaged | 63 | 67 | 64 | 59 | |||||||
| Black | 50 | NA | NA | 47 | |||||||
| White | 74 | 78 | 67 | 71 | |||||||
| 6th Grade Reading | All Students | 61 | 70 | 53 | 62 | ||||||
| Economically Disadvantaged | 51 | 63 | 50 | 59 | |||||||
| Black | 36 | NA | NA | 53 | |||||||
| White | 65 | 75 | 52 | 71 | |||||||
| 7th Grade Math | All Students | 75 | 78 | 77 | 72 | ||||||
| Economically Disadvantaged | 72 | 77 | 77 | 69 | |||||||
| Black | 80 | 67 | NA | 71 | |||||||
| White | 75 | 90 | 83 | 72 | |||||||
| 7th Grade Reading | All Students | 61 | 73 | 68 | 74 | ||||||
| Economically Disadvantaged | 57 | 70 | 60 | 66 | |||||||
| Black | 70 | 67 | NA | 81 | |||||||
| White | 61 | 86 | 71 | 67 | |||||||
| 8th Grade Math | All Students | 74 | 75 | 81 | 70 | ||||||
| Economically Disadvantaged | 65 | 68 | 83 | 64 | |||||||
| Black | 75 | 53 | NA | 64 | |||||||
| White | 74 | 87 | 88 | 80 | |||||||
| 8th Grade Reading | All Students | 74 | 77 | 74 | 87 | ||||||
| Economically Disadvantaged | 64 | 71 | 74 | 85 | |||||||
| Black | 56 | 65 | NA | 86 | |||||||
| White | 76 | 83 | 76 | 87 | |||||||
| Grade: High | City Charter High School | ||||
| Demographics % | Economically Disadvantaged | 69 | |||
| Black | 53 | ||||
| White | 36 | ||||
| Total Percentage of Students Proficient or Advanced | 11th Grade Math | All Students | 66 | ||
| Economically Disadvantaged | 62 | ||||
| Black | 57 | ||||
| White | 81 | ||||
| 11th Grade Reading | All Students | 72 | |||
| Economically Disadvantaged | 68 | ||||
| Black | 67 | ||||
| White | 79 | ||||
| School District | Total Exp per ADM | |
| Upper Saint Clair | $23,866.73 | |
| Quaker Valley | $21,171.91 | |
| West Mifflin Area | $20,760.64 | |
| Pittsburgh | $20,594.82 | |
| Wilkinsburg Borough | $19,049.39 | |
| Montour | $18,952.11 | |
| Duquesne City | $18,820.95 | |
| Fox Chapel Area | $18,308.08 | |
| Riverview | $17,861.73 | |
| Allegheny Valley | $17,491.73 | |
| Cornell | $17,285.91 | |
| Gateway | $16,757.35 | |
| Keystone Oaks | $16,672.38 | |
| Penn Hills | $16,549.45 | |
| Moon Area | $16,104.98 | |
| Carlynton | $15,719.20 | |
| North Hills | $15,525.33 | |
| Deer Lakes | $15,504.70 | |
| Northgate | $15,463.42 | |
| Brentwood Borough | $15,377.45 | |
| North Allegheny | $15,306.81 | |
| West Allegheny | $15,236.38 | |
| Chartiers Valley | $15,157.66 | |
| Woodland Hills | $15,039.65 |
| School District | Total Exp per ADM | |
| Mt Lebanon | $14,975.49 | |
| Clairton City | $14,954.43 | |
| Avonworth | $14,925.12 | |
| Shaler Area | $14,793.91 | |
| Bethel Park | $14,695.15 | |
| East Allegheny | $14,657.82 | |
| Elizabeth Forward | $14,613.58 | |
| McKeesport Area | $14,486.54 | |
| Hampton Township | $13,744.03 | |
| Baldwin-Whitehall | $13,621.97 | |
| Pine-Richland | $13,614.90 | |
| Plum Borough | $13,593.39 | |
| South Fayette Township | $13,589.91 | |
| Steel Valley | $13,396.16 | |
| South Park | $13,304.42 | |
| West Jefferson Hills | $13,211.83 | |
| Highlands | $13,045.22 | |
| Sto-Rox | $12,738.16 | |
| South Allegheny | $11,695.51 |
Note: The 11 highlighted districts are high poverty school districts in Allegheny County.
Latest spending data is from the 2012–2013 school year.
For the co-principal at Propel East, the most important part of her job is hiring and training the best teachers. As she explained, many teacher candidates have the necessary tools be competent teachers, but she is looking for something more—she is looking for that “Propel person.” By this she means educators who are committed to “rigor, relevance, and relationships.” Because Propel East believes that strong teacher-student relationships are critical to academic success, they only want teachers who are willing and able to form strong bonds with students. The principal’s other hiring requirement is a strong work ethic. She knows that teaching at Propel East is not an easy job and that it requires a hefty time commitment. She wants teachers who will do “whatever it takes” to ensure that all kids are thriving.
At Propel East, the principals know that professional development of teachers is critical to increasing teacher effectiveness. They understand that in order for teachers to excel, like any other profession, they need rigorous training.
At Propel, teachers have 30 days of professional development. New teachers are assigned a mentor and receive consistent support from content-specific instructional coaches. Established teachers and teacher leaders have access to differentiated professional development, support from instructional coaches, leadership opportunities, and the autonomy to design their own curriculum to meet the needs of their students. This differentiated support has been critical to the school retaining a higher percentage of teachers than typical urban schools. Teacher collaboration and peer feedback is also encouraged and supported. Teachers are always trying to improve their craft and frequently visit each other’s classes and even observe teachers at other schools within the Propel network.
Additionally, students are only in self-contained classrooms for kindergarten and first grade. By second grade, students have different teachers for language arts and math/science. Propel recognizes the importance of having content experts starting in the early grades and fostering and honing the development of the skills needed to teach different subjects. Additionally, principals spend a significant amount of time in the classrooms and provide weekly feedback to teachers.
Propel East invests a significant amount of time developing strong relationships with parents. The school sets an ambitious goal of 100 percent participation for parent/teacher conferences. If work schedules make it difficult for parents to attend conferences, Propel teachers will go to them. In addition to formal conferences, teachers’ schedules allow for daily written communication between school and home, and many teachers speak with parents on a daily basis. The principal noted that she attends every Individualized Education Plan meeting for students with disabilities. This kind of involvement from teachers up to the administration is not something many parents are accustomed to.
Like all the other Opportunity Schools, Propel East uses student data to inform and drive instruction and create targeted interventions. Propel East emphasized that students are intimately involved in the process of analyzing their own data and setting goals for the year. After students take their first practice exam, teachers sit down (even with students as young as third grade) to review and analyze the results. They talk through their strengths and weaknesses and set concrete goals together. By doing this, students feel more invested in learning and improving.
Another critical component of Propel East is its nationally recognized arts program. Propel East students participate in about one hour of performing or visual arts each day. The school has an ‘Artists in Residence’ program, as well as partnerships with a host of community theater, music and dance groups. This focus on the arts allows many students who are less successful in other coursework to thrive in another setting and gain the necessary confidence to excel academically.
Note: Data for attendance and discipline represents the 2013–2014 school year.
| 3rd Grade Math |
3rd Grade Reading |
4th Grade Math |
4th Grade Reading |
5th Grade Math |
5th Grade Reading |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All students | School vs |
84 | 73 | 86 | 63 | 74 | 63 |
State |
75 | 70 | 76 | 68 | 67 | 60 | |
| Economically disadvantaged | School vs |
78 | 59 | 79 | 54 | 73 | 62 |
District |
54 | 48 | 53 | 41 | 42 | 32 | |
| Black | School vs |
71 | 64 | 71 | 47 | 65 | 53 |
District |
49 | 46 | 53 | 41 | 40 | 32 | |
| All students | Economically disadvantaged | Black | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| School vs |
State | School vs |
District | School vs |
District | |
| 3rd Grade Math |
84 | 75 | 78 | 54 | 71 | 49 |
| 3rd Grade Reading |
73 | 70 | 59 | 48 | 64 | 46 |
| 4th Grade Math |
86 | 76 | 79 | 53 | 71 | 53 |
| 4th Grade Reading |
63 | 68 | 54 | 41 | 47 | 41 |
| 5th Grade Math |
74 | 67 | 73 | 42 | 65 | 40 |
| 5th Grade Reading |
63 | 60 | 62 | 32 | 53 | 32 |
At the Urban League of Greater Pittsburgh Charter School, where 81 percent of the school is low-income and 99 percent of the student body is black, they have not simply closed the achievement gap they have reversed it. The most recent test results show that the black students performed better, on average, than their white counterparts in their chartering district.1 In math, of the 79 percent of students who scored at least proficient on the PSSAs, more students scored advanced than proficient.
ULGPCS attributes much of its success to the fact that the school had the same leadership for the last 14 years. From its inception 17 years ago, the school has had a relentless focus on academic excellence and rigor for all students. ULGPCS has a much longer school year as well as a longer school day. With 210 days of instruction, ULGPCS has 28 more days of instruction than schools in ULGPCS’s chartering district.
ULGPCS uses qualitative and quantitative data to provide individualized and regular intervention and enrichment for its students. Each year, teachers and parents work together to develop individualized learning plans and set yearly goals for each student. Students at ULGPCS are never tracked. Rather their teachers are continually assessing their academic ability and challenging them and supporting them as needed. Instruction is highly differentiated based on individual student needs. This includes a great deal of time spent on literacy instruction based on students’ individual abilities, differentiated centers for both reading and math, intervention groups for struggling students, and differentiated homework assignments and tests. Additionally, ULGPCS teachers have instructional aides to help with individual student needs either in small group instruction or one-on-one.
A supportive and caring culture is essential to ULGPCS’s success. At ULGPCS, teachers and staff believe that developing meaningful relationships with both students and parents is critical to their students’ overall growth and achievement. Each year, teachers do home visits in the fall in order to build trust between the teacher and each family. Additionally, parents are welcomed into the school and encouraged to take a very active role in their child’s education. Parents are asked to volunteer at the school for 30 hours if their schedule permits. Additionally, report cards are not sent home. Parents must come to the school to discuss their child’s progress. However, the school does not wait until a grading period ends to communicate with parents. Parents and teachers in are constant communication via phone and text. Teachers send constant updates to parents, celebrating successes as well as informing them of problems.
The school has a unique focus on African-American culture, traditions and history. The school’s founders were African-American community leaders and educators who saw that many children in their community did not have access to a quality education. They wanted to create a superior school where all students, especially poor African-American students, would thrive. They felt that exposure to culturally relevant role models and the opportunity to learn about their own culture and history was important to their students’ self-perception and ultimately, their success.
"2014 Report to the Community," A+Schools, http://www.aplusschools.org/research-and-reports/report-to-the-community.Note: Data for attendance and discipline represents the 2013–2014 school year.
| 3rd Grade Math |
3rd Grade Reading |
4th Grade Math |
4th Grade Reading |
5th Grade Math |
5th Grade Reading |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All students | School vs |
87 | 81 | 87 | 68 | 61 | 58 |
State |
75 | 70 | 76 | 68 | 67 | 60 | |
| Economically disadvantaged | School vs |
92 | 85 | 82 | 64 | 67 | 56 |
District |
60 | 48 | 59 | 47 | 46 | 35 | |
| Black | School vs |
87 | 81 | 86 | 68 | 60 | 57 |
District |
52 | 39 | 54 | 41 | 41 | 31 | |
| All students | Economically disadvantaged | Black | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| School vs |
State | School vs |
District | School vs |
District | |
| 3rd Grade Math |
87 | 75 | 92 | 60 | 87 | 52 |
| 3rd Grade Reading |
81 | 70 | 85 | 48 | 81 | 39 |
| 4th Grade Math |
87 | 76 | 82 | 59 | 86 | 54 |
| 4th Grade Reading |
68 | 68 | 64 | 47 | 68 | 41 |
| 5th Grade Math |
61 | 67 | 67 | 46 | 60 | 41 |
| 5th Grade Reading |
58 | 60 | 56 | 35 | 57 | 31 |
Verner Elementary School in Riverview School District is the only traditional public school that met the criteria to be considered an Opportunity School. Riverview is a small school district with only one other elementary school. Unlike Verner, the other elementary school serves a population that does not have significant percentage of economically disadvantaged students. When we asked the Riverview Superintendent if the students are treated any differently at the two schools she replied, “We don’t change the rules of the game–same curriculum, same high expectations.” In many urban districts, teachers frequently try to avoid schools with higher concentrations of poverty. This is not the case at Verner. The Superintendent and Verner staff scoffed at the idea that teachers would request to transfer from Verner to be able to teach at the district’s more affluent school. On the contrary, teacher stability is very high at Verner and teachers feel a strong sense of ownership over the school and the success of their students.
At Verner, the teachers and leaders believe that differentiating instruction is critical to the success of their diverse student population. Here, every student has his or her own individualized education plan called the Riverview Customized Education Plan, something that is usually only provided to gifted students or students with disabilities. By creating a customized education plan based on qualitative and quantitative data, Verner ensures that each student is being taught at the appropriate instructional level, whether they require remediation or further enrichment. At Verner, enrichment is considered just as important as remediation. According to the Superintendent, teachers at the school have a “moral obligation to grow students every year” no matter where they start. The district’s motto “Serious Success” exemplifies their belief that teachers are personally responsible for student growth and student success.
Frequent assessments allow teachers to determine the needs of their students. A math teacher explained that she uses data to separate her students based on the objective of the day. Typically, she creates several different math stations in each class. Technology allows certain students to work independently so that she has the opportunity to teach a more targeted lesson to a smaller group of students at the appropriate level.
Verner boasts a collaborative work environment where staff members work together to meet each child’s needs. If a student is struggling, teachers and staff work collaboratively to address that student’s needs. They will call for a team meeting that includes the student’s teachers, learning specialist, the principal and often the guidance counselor. This team develops a targeted intervention to ensure success. The school also offers an extended day program with targeted assistance for struggling students. Additionally, the school, in partnership with a local church, offers an afterschool homework club for kids that have difficulty completing homework at home.
The school district has a very stringent hiring process, which includes requiring candidates to teach a mock lesson to students as well interviews with both teachers and administration. While ultimately hiring new teachers is a district-level decision, the superintendent said that a great deal of weight is given to the principal’s preference.
Note: Data for attendance and discipline represents the 2013–2014 school year.
| 3rd Grade Math |
3rd Grade Reading |
4th Grade Math |
4th Grade Reading |
5th Grade Math |
5th Grade Reading |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All students | School vs |
83 | 83 | 86 | 71 | 72 | 64 |
State |
75 | 70 | 76 | 68 | 67 | 60 | |
| Economically disadvantaged | School vs |
82 | 82 | 86 | 64 | 67 | 50 |
District |
86 | 86 | 81 | 78 | 63 | 50 | |
| All students | Economically disadvantaged | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| School vs |
State | School vs |
District | |
| 3rd Grade Math |
83 | 75 | 82 | 86 |
| 3rd Grade Reading |
83 | 70 | 82 | 86 |
| 4th Grade Math |
86 | 76 | 86 | 81 |
| 4th Grade Reading |
71 | 68 | 64 | 78 |
| 5th Grade Math |
72 | 67 | 67 | 63 |
| 5th Grade Reading |
64 | 60 | 50 | 50 |
Note: Disaggregated data for grade-level black student proficiency does not exist because there are not enough black students in each grade.
At Propel McKeesport, the administration and the teachers have a “whatever it takes” attitude to make sure all kids–83 percent of whom come from low-income families–are achieving at the highest levels. With 86 percent of its low-income students proficient or advanced in math by eighth grade and 90 percent proficient or advanced in reading by eighth grade, Propel McKeesport is truly a “beating-the-odds” school. Propel McKeesport has completely reversed the racial achievement gap by eighth grade. With 90 percent of black eighth graders proficient or advanced in math, black students at Propel McKeesport have a proficiency rate that is 10 percentage points higher than white students at the state level.
The belief that all students can succeed academically, regardless of external factors, is central to the mission of the school and guides all decision-making. This culture of high-expectations permeates through the halls of Propel McKeesport–from the academic rigor in the classroom to its full integration model to the expectation that all students should treat peers and adults with kindness and respect. These high expectations have created a school culture where learning is “cool.” In seventh and eighth grades, students get to be part of the “Nerd Herd” if they are on the honor roll, and students frequently encourage each other to “nerd up.”
At Propel McKeesport data driven instruction is gospel. As the principal remarked, “Our teachers live and breathe data and are constantly assessing students and meeting them where they are.” At the beginning of the school year, the principal, teachers and instructional coaches meet to set data targets for the entire year. This includes goals on the PSSAs as well as goals for internal benchmark assessments aligned to the state tests. The school also sets targets for critical cultural data like attendance rates and number of discipline referrals. These targets are posted throughout the school.
In the classroom teachers are continually using data to measure the success of individual students. Teachers have the flexibility to adapt their lessons and teaching approaches to ensure that they are being instantly responsive to the needs of students. As one middle school math teacher explained, students in his classes take weekly assessments aligned to the state standards. The data he collects from those assessments determines the content and focus of his curriculum and centers for the week.
Professional development of teachers is a critical part of the culture at Propel McKeesport and is infused into the daily schedule. Even amongst the strongest teachers, there is a constant drive to become a better teacher. Here, the principal is the instructional leader. She is in classrooms daily and completes at least five teacher observations each week and provides immediate feedback to teachers. In addition to the principal, teachers get an immense amount of support and training from content-specific instructional coaches. The principal and coaches meet regularly and, based on observations, will identify teachers that need additional support. The instructional coaches spend additional time planning and analyzing student data with these teachers. In some cases the instructional coaches will model a lesson within the classroom or even co-teach. These coaches have the flexibility and autonomy to spend their time where it is needed most.
Note: Data for attendance and discipline represents the 2013–2014 school year.
| 6th Grade Math |
6th Grade Reading |
7th Grade Math |
7th Grade Reading |
8th Grade Math |
8th Grade Reading |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All students | School vs |
91 | 58 | 90 | 75 | 89 | 89 |
State |
71 | 64 | 75 | 72 | 73 | 79 | |
| Economically disadvantaged | School vs |
94 | 58 | 90 | 76 | 86 | 90 |
District |
45 | 31 | 41 | 44 | 45 | 53 | |
| Black | School vs |
91 | 53 | 89 | 78 | 90 | 86 |
District |
40 | 24 | 35 | 39 | 41 | 45 | |
| All students | Economically disadvantaged | Black | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| School vs |
State | School vs |
District | School vs |
District | |
| 6th Grade Math |
91 | 71 | 94 | 45 | 91 | 40 |
| 6th Grade Reading |
58 | 64 | 58 | 31 | 53 | 24 |
| 7th Grade Math |
90 | 75 | 90 | 41 | 89 | 35 |
| 7th Grade Reading |
75 | 72 | 76 | 44 | 78 | 39 |
| 8th Grade Math |
89 | 73 | 86 | 45 | 90 | 41 |
| 8th Grade Reading |
89 | 79 | 90 | 53 | 86 | 45 |
The Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy, known as SciTech, began as a student research project at Carnegie Mellon University's Heinz College in 2006. The CMU student behind the vision of SciTech was eventually hired by Pittsburgh Public Schools to oversee the formation of the school. SciTech, which opened its doors in 2009, currently serves students in grades 6 through 12. SciTech has the distinction of being named an Opportunity School for both its middle school and high school programs.
Unlike most comprehensive urban high schools, SciTech was created after several years of meticulous planning and research. The school’s rigorous STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) curriculum was thoughtfully designed to maximize student learning so that each student, regardless of background, would have the opportunity to excel. For example, every student must chose one of four concentration areas–computer science, life science, environmental science, or engineering. Requiring students to focus on a specific content area allows for in-depth exploration tailored to the interests of each student and gives students the opportunity to master a specific subject area.
Most schools have classes that are about 40 minutes long, but SciTech has only four 80-minute periods a day plus an activity period. Less transition time means more time on task. Longer periods allow for deeper, more thoughtful engagement and more time for students to work through the challenging coursework.
A flexible activity period is built into the school day. Students and teachers use this time to partner on a range of activities generated by student interest. Examples include chess, bicycling, robotics and movie clubs. This period was engineered to foster a supportive learning environment by encouraging students to build relationships with teachers outside the classroom.
At SciTech, the expectation is that all students will go to college and graduate with a four-year degree. As the principal noted, “College is what I want for my own children, so why would I not want that for all my students?” At SciTech, they do not just talk about college, they prepare students for getting into college and thriving once they get there. Students participate in a post-secondary prep class that helps them with college essay writing, SAT preparation and the practical elements of attending college, like navigating the financial aid process. By 11th grade, all students are exposed to AP classes. As the principal noted, students who have exposure to college level classes are much more likely to persevere when faced with the challenges of college.
While a well-designed school model is important, the principal is the first to say that the most important factor in SciTech’s success is the quality of the instruction. A STEM curriculum by itself is not going to yield high student achievement unless it is taught by highly effective and committed teachers. Teachers at SciTech are not only skilled educators with content expertise, but also school leaders who are working together towards the common mission of providing rigorous high-quality instruction.
Being a new school, SciTech had the unique opportunity to build its staff from the ground up. As they went through the hiring process, it became clear that these founding teachers were going have unique responsibilities related to designing the curriculum and developing the emerging program. Knowing that teacher continuity was key to the school’s success, the school district negotiated a carve out from the seniority system that governs other Pittsburgh public schools to ensure the stability and quality of its teaching staff. As such, the school was specifically designed to attract, develop, and retain excellent teachers.
Note: Data for attendance and discipline represents the 2013–2014 school year.
| 6th Grade Math |
6th Grade Reading |
7th Grade Math |
7th Grade Reading |
8th Grade Math |
8th Grade Readin |
11th Grade Math |
11th Grade Reading |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All students | School vs |
71 | 60 | 92 | 72 | 78 | 84 | 79 | 92 |
State |
71 | 64 | 75 | 72 | 73 | 79 | 64 | 74 | |
| Economically disadvantaged | School vs |
71 | 59 | 92 | 69 | 73 | 87 | 68 | 88 |
District |
51 | 35 | 57 | 49 | 53 | 62 | 37 | 51 | |
| Black | School vs |
67 | 50 | 77 | 50 | 65 | 85 | 61 | 86 |
District |
49 | 33 | 50 | 42 | 47 | 58 | 34 | 47 | |
| All students | Economically disadvantaged | Black | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| School vs |
State | School vs |
District | School vs |
District | |
| 6th Grade Math |
71 | 71 | 71 | 51 | 67 | 49 |
| 6th Grade Reading |
60 | 64 | 59 | 35 | 50 | 33 |
| 7th Grade Math |
92 | 75 | 92 | 57 | 77 | 50 |
| 7th Grade Reading |
72 | 72 | 69 | 49 | 50 | 42 |
| 8th Grade Math |
78 | 73 | 73 | 53 | 65 | 47 |
| 8th Grade Readin |
84 | 79 | 87 | 62 | 85 | 58 |
| 11th Grade Math |
79 | 64 | 68 | 37 | 61 | 34 |
| 11th Grade Reading |
92 | 74 | 88 | 51 | 86 | 47 |
NOTE: College matriculation data is from 2012–2013.
“Nothing in life is so complicated that it cannot be achieved by discipline and hard work.” This is the motto of Barack Obama Academy of International Studies, the only Pittsburgh Public School with an International Baccalaureate (IB) program, an internationally recognized rigorous pre-college curriculum. The IB program, which is known for preparing students to be masters at literary analysis, seems to be working for all students at Obama. On the most recent Keystone literature exam, an impressive 94 percent of economically disadvantaged students scored proficient—20 percentage points higher than the state as whole.
At Obama, all 11th and 12th grade students are enrolled in IB classes, which are college level classes taught over a two-year span. In order to prepare students for the challenges of this demanding curriculum, students participate in a Middle Years IB program in 6th to 10th grades. Obama’s principal Dr. Walters, who was responsible for creating the IB program at Obama, said the process took years of meticulous planning. In order to become an accredited IB program, it is necessary to go through a formal and demanding accreditation process.
The success of an IB program hinges on having highly trained staff that are able to teach the rigorous IB curriculum. Just like the STEM curriculum at SciTech, the IB curriculum at Obama is only as good as the teachers who teach it. Obama’s principal credits the school’s success on its continuous focus on teacher professional development which is a mandatory requirement for all IB accredited programs in order to ensure the program’s integrity. Obama has successfully attracted a very dedicated group of teachers who are committed to creating lessons that engage and meet the needs of its diverse student population. Because the IB program has clearly defined expectations for student learning, teachers must create classes designed to meet these high standards. Teachers implement formative assessments as a daily norm to inform all future planning and instructional decisions.
Dr. Walters constantly repeats the following mantra to his students, “No excuses. Don’t waste time. Do your personal best.” For Obama’s principal, having his students struggle is an essential part of the process. His students often tell him that they would have straight “A”s if they went to a different high school. But for Dr. Walters, giving his students a false sense of accomplishment would be irresponsible. He wants his students to experience overcoming failure in high school so that when they go to college they have the skills and the confidence to thrive. While the expectations at Obama are high, there is a pervasive belief that all students can handle a rigorous curriculum if given adequate support. Dr. Walters has created a culture that is supportive yet demanding. While students may complain about the intense workload, former students often come back to Obama to tell current students about how their struggles in high school prepared them well for the challenges of college.
Obama has also been very thoughtful about engaging parents and has invested a lot of time and resources to include parents in their children’s education. Parents are frequently invited to school for fun and engaging family nights as well as learning experiences, such as an all-day Parent Institute with workshops and speakers geared towards helping parents support their children’s academic success.
Note: Data for attendance and discipline represents the 2013–2014 school year.
| 11th Grade Math |
11th Grade Reading |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| All students | School vs |
73 | 92 |
State |
64 | 74 | |
| Economically disadvantaged | School vs |
67 | 94 |
District |
37 | 51 | |
| Black | School vs |
68 | 89 |
District |
34 | 47 | |
| All students | Economically disadvantaged | Black | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| School vs |
State | School vs |
District | School vs |
District | |
| 11th Grade Math |
73 | 64 | 67 | 37 | 68 | 34 |
| 11th Grade Reading |
92 | 74 | 94 | 51 | 89 | 47 |
NOTE: College matriculation data is from 2012–2013.
NOTE: Latest spending data is from the 2012–2013 school year.
NOTE: Latest spending data is from the 2012–2013 school year.
NOTE: Latest spending data is from the 2012–2013 school year.
NOTE: Latest spending data is from the 2012–2013 school year.
NOTE: Latest spending data is from the 2012–2013 school year.
NOTE: Latest spending data is from the 2012–2013 school year.
NOTE: Latest spending data is from the 2012–2013 school year.
NOTE: Latest spending data is from the 2012–2013 school year.
NOTE: Latest spending data is from the 2012–2013 school year.
NOTE: Latest spending data is from the 2012–2013 school year.
NOTE: Latest spending data is from the 2012–2013 school year.
