Families speak out against school closures, school board advances student code of conduct

Top Agenda Items

• Families speak out against the school board’s decision to move forward with the Future Ready plan
• Community members ask the school board to advocate for more family housing
• Board approves the student code of conduct after a bid to delay it fails

Help turn feedback into impact. Subscribe today.

Each week, we share surveys on the biggest issues and take your responses directly to our elected officials. Join for free to make your voice heard.

SUBSCRIBE

Families speak out against the school board’s decision to move forward with the Future Ready plan

The Pittsburgh Public Schools Board of Directors’ decision in May to close up to 12 schools as it moves forward with the Future Ready plan did not end the opposition of parents and community members.

The June 22nd public hearing included community members who spoke out against both the plan and the conduct of the board members who approved it.

Vanessa Dagavarian—whose daughter attends Woolslair K-5 in Bloomfield, which is slated to close—questioned the legitimacy of the plan. “Voting yes on a plan that the vast majority of the public did not trust is not democratic,” she said. “It’s incredibly arrogant to feel that in five months’ time you know better than the community at large.”

Many of the comments during the June public hearing focused on May’s legislative session, when the plan was approved. Multiple speakers said that a school board member had laughed at PPS parent Jazlynn Worthy, who lost her composure at the meeting.

Worthy addressed the board directly at the June hearing: “Accountability does not end after voting to close our schools, and shattering the communities in them and around them. It continues every day that we are forced to live with the consequences of your decisions.”

She added that “trust has been broken” between PPS families and the school board, and said half of the school board, representing the even-numbered districts, is up for reelection next year. “When trust is broken, voters, you guys have the right to demand change,” she said.

Community members ask the school board to advocate for more family housing

While the Future Ready plan was developed as a response to the district’s declining enrollment and ongoing budget issues, several speakers at the June 22nd public hearing argued that PPS cannot stabilize if Pittsburgh doesn’t address why families are leaving the district.

Randall Taylor—a former school board member, who said he had voted during his own tenure to close schools—linked declining enrollment to the loss of family-sized public housing in Pittsburgh. He called on the current board members to use their position to advocate for child-friendly housing policies in the city. “You are a separate governmental body with the power to determine how policy is done,” he said.

Leeretta Payne of the Hill District echoed the call for more family-sized housing, suggesting that declining enrollment can be reversed, but “it must start with retaining our families within the city and seeking the return of black families displaced from this city,” through “building affordable housing, family-sized housing, preserving existing affordable homes.”

The school board doesn’t set housing policy directly, but it is one of three local government bodies, alongside the city and county, with the power to set taxes on real estate.

As InformUp:PGH reports, the city is currently considering a $50 million plan, known as the Downtown Transit Revitalization Investment District (TRID), to use future real estate taxes to pay off loans for investments in a special district across Downtown and the Strip District.

Marcia Bandes of Squirrel Hill objected specifically to any PPS real estate tax revenue being directed to the TRID.

“What do Downtown apartments have to do with your mission or your beliefs?” she asked, citing the Smithfield Field Lofts, a new Downtown development where more than half of the units are set to be one-bedroom apartments, which are too small for families with school-aged children.

Board approves the student code of conduct after a bid to delay it fails

The school board approved a new version of the district’s code of conduct, but not before debating whether those affected should have had time to review and weigh in on changes.

Director Devon Taliaferro of East Allegheny, chair of the Policy Committee, said that the code of conduct has traditionally been “given a 30-day review period for the public, as our policies state.” She moved to table approval of the code until July’s meeting, to allow for public comment.

Superintendent Wayne Walters, who is an employee of the district and not a member of the school board, clarified that the code of conduct is not a district “policy”—in a technical sense, at least—and is therefore not subject to a 30-day comment period. He cautioned that tabling the approval of the code could delay its translation into different languages and its distribution for the district’s summer leadership academy, “where we launch our school year with professional development.”

Board President Gene Walker of Brighton Heights said the 30-day comment period for the code of conduct is a COVID-era change worth retiring: “I think this is one of those that could go back to the way it was done prior to 2020.”

Director Emma Yourd of Beechview asked about groups “who should have had the opportunity to review the code of conduct and have not had the opportunity to do so.” She then asked Walters to confirm groups that had already been given the chance to review.

Walters reframed the question: “So it’s not about the review, it’s about stakeholders that we meet with to inform any changes,” he said. “An invitation was extended to the Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers. I’m not sure if they responded or not. Our Parent Advisory Council members did, our student voice group did, the Education Law Center did.”

Director Yael Silk of Squirrel Hill North suggested both sides of the discussion had merit: “It makes sense to me that there would be public expectations given past practice.” She later added, “I’m also hearing that there will be negative consequences to how we operate as a district and how information is delivered, particularly translated on time.”

The board voted 5-3 to approve the code of conduct without the 30-day public comment period.