Pittsburgh school board members say a set of policy changes passed Wednesday will bolster community engagement, increase transparency and make the district more efficient — though some parents and union leaders are less trusting of their origins and reach.
The policies result from months of school board coaching with the Council of Great City Schools, a national coalition of 78 large urban school districts. The organization provides school boards coaching in a framework known as Student Outcomes Focused Governance, meant to position boards so that they can drive improvements in student test scores, graduation rates and post-secondary program completion trends.
“We are all looking forward to continuing to do this work by putting the outcomes of our students at the forefront of the work that we do,” said school board president Gene Walker. “Because if our students aren't getting results, then we're not doing our job correctly.”
The changes approved at the board’s February legislative meeting will focus the board with targeted goal-setting, streamline voting procedures and require PPS to publish all school board member questions and answers about a given agenda item for the public to review.
But the policies have also drawn criticism for how they restrict what agenda items can be discussed during board meetings, eliminate multiple monthly committee meetings and make the guidelines for board and superintendent communication less concrete.
Parents and groups, including 412 Justice and the Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers, have raised concerns about how these policies could limit board time to discuss test scores and cede decision-making power to district administrators.
Walker and other board members refuted those claims, stating that the changes will instead help board members be more intentional about district time and resources. It’s a change some board members say will finally allow them to “move the needle” in closing PPS’s racialized achievement gaps.
“It really clearly defines the lines between what board work is and what superintendent work is, and we try not to cross those boundaries,” Walker told WESA ahead of Wednesday's vote. “I think it creates some opportunities for more community engagement and transparency. It certainly saves time from the board, who is unpaid and volunteer, but it also saves time on the administrative side.”
Outcries against restricting board power
An earlier version of the policies required board members to recuse themselves from “all matters involving individuals or organizations who made campaign contributions to them.”
On Wednesday, however, policy committee chair Jamie Piotrowski announced the board had withdrawn that provision after receiving criticism from constituents and the Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers, which represents more than 2,600 PPS employees.
The union’s political action committee endorses and fundraises for school board candidates.
“You will be hard [-pressed] to find an item in this district that does not involve PFT-represented employees,” PFT president Billy Hileman told board members during Monday’s public hearing.
“You will have an even harder time to find an example of a conflict of interest arising from PFT support for a school director candidacy,” he continued. “When we disagree, we do not think that your decision is a product of a lack of campaign support from us. We just disagree.”
Hileman urged the board to reject the full slate of policy changes, comparing their goal-setting focus to standardized testing policies like No Child Left Behind, intended to hold low-performing schools nationwide accountable to improve test scores or face federal intervention.
While some schools made progress in closing racial achievement gaps, the lofty goal of bringing all students to grade level within 12 years was never reached.
Former school board member Moira Kaleida criticized the collection of policies for the lack of empirical research on them. Kaleida, who now runs the Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools, said grassroots education advocates nationwide have seen their districts become less transparent after adopting Student Outcomes Focused Governance.
“When we implement best practices, we should confirm that they are just that, that they are actually best practices,” Kaleida said. “In fact, no empirical research at all has been done on this, and it’s led to a ton of disenfranchised communities that are just pissed off and trying to tell everybody and warn them of the dangers.”
Others have pushed board members to reject the policies for fear that they will restrict the democratic process, particularly concerning limitations on agenda discussion. One proposed change would have limited conversation only to certain items — those pulled from the streamlined consent agenda, approved by a single vote — and required requests from three board members before that discussion could proceed.
The board voted Wednesday to amend that policy so just one voice, instead of three, would be required to warrant a discussion. They also added back provisions extending board responsibility to all district policies, and removed a limit on board-submitted questions to the superintendent.
Walker said none of the policies outlined would cede board power to the superintendent or limit the board only to discussions of state test scores.
“None of [the policies] give additional powers or authority to the superintendent,” Walker said. “None of them were meant to strip our abilities to do anything, whether it is hold the superintendent accountable, ask for reports, outline or define what student outcomes are in addition to state testing.”
Community feedback sessions this spring
As part of their goal-setting work, school board members will hold another 11 listening sessions for families and stakeholders this spring to define the school board’s goals for the coming years.
The meetings, which are slated for March and April, will survey community members about their priorities for student outcomes, whether that be related reading scores, attendance rates or something else.
During a discussion of the community engagement process last week, Ben Mackey with the Council of Great City Schools said doing so would allow constituents the opportunity to help shape the school board’s goals.
“The goal of this is to actually build trust with the community,” Mackey said. “To hear them, first of all. To turn that into goals and guardrails or values, and then use that as a jumping off point to go back and communicate: ‘Here's what we heard and here's where the board is prioritizing.’”
A lack of listening was among the chief complaints about the district’s town halls on looming school closures last year. Director Devon Taliaferro said this latest process could be a step toward rebuilding trust with families and taxpayers.
“If we are supposed to listen to the community — if we call it a community listening session, but we do more talking than listening — then that's problematic,” she said.
To stakeholders distrustful of this process, school board members have urged their constituents to be open to change. Walker said the district’s current goal-monitoring process already goes beyond testing, and that a lack of evidence doesn’t mean a framework lacks potential.
“Because if it's innovative, it probably means it's not proven,” Walker said. “And if it's proven, then it's probably not innovative because now you're just copying what other people are doing.”
