Facilities Utilization Plan

• Who have we heard from, and what did they say?
  • We heard from a variety of stakeholders across the PPS community, including principals, school leaders, teachers, secondary students, and families. We reached the community through various methods, such as surveys, community sessions, focus groups, town halls and established an advisory group. In our first phase of work, we were focused on aligning with the community on the key challenges the district is facing and soliciting feedback from the community about how PPS can improve the student experience through different types of school changes. Overall, stakeholders from across the community have expressed the need to improve PPS schools and to create a better future for all PPS students. To view the key themes and insights coming from our community members, click here [link to this part of the website].
  • There is still work to be done in Phase 2 to reach even more internal and external PPS community members, including employers, partner organizations and universities, as well as more students and teachers. The second phase will be focused on adapting and refining the proposal presented to the Board in August in preparation for final recommendations on September 16^th.

• How are we engaging community members who do not speak English? How are we engaging them once scenarios are published?
  • We are inputting information regarding the facilities utilization plan and FAQs on the PPS website, which can be translated to a variety of languages.   In addition, special sessions are being executed by the district to engage this population. 

• What was our process for gathering all community feedback to help inform recommendations?
  • The ERS team took all feedback from community sessions, town halls, surveys, and focus groups and synthesized every comment and question. The then bucketed comments and questions into key themes and insights, which can be found here [link to ‘Where do we go from here?’]. No stone went unturned – they spent a lot of time reading through thousands of comments to get a well-rounded and nuanced understanding of community feedback from various stakeholders. We also captured all questions and input them into a large question bank; these questions were then synthesized, and most have been brought forward through this FAQs page.

• What is the Advisory Committee and how was it formed?
  • The Advisory Committee is a group of cross-functional stakeholders from across the PPS community, including parents, community organizers, out-of-school time partners, central office staff, school-level staff, teachers, and students. The group was formed through a combination of appointments by Board Members and PPS leadership and established to ensure diverse perspectives are considered. This committee has convened monthly throughout June to August to provide feedback and input on school portfolio changes.

• When will the community be informed of any school portfolio changes, and when will these school portfolio changes take effect?
  • ERS shared an initial proposal at the Board meeting on August 13^th, which was informed by community engagement efforts leading up to it. A final recommendation was presented during the Board meeting on October 15^th. Ahead of October’s Board meeting, another round of community engagement efforts took place and that community input directly informed the final recommendation for school portfolio changes.
  • Should the Board vote to open a commentary period on the recommended changes, a three-month period will commence for public comment. The community will be informed of final changes and/or next steps for this process during the three-month public comment period.
  • Any changes to the school portfolio would require careful, multi-year planning to ensure schools are well-designed and prepared to support student transition.

• Why is PPS closing schools? What was the process for arriving at this decision?

The decision to consider school closures is not one we take lightly. Over the years, Pittsburgh Public Schools has seen a significant decline in student enrollment—losing more than a quarter of our students—yet we have continued operating the same number of schools. This model has created multiple challenges, including the impact on our ability to staff schools adequately and provide a breadth of opportunities and programs for our students.

Why is PPS closing schools now?

The reality is that our current structure—operating the same number of schools despite a significant drop in enrollment—has been unsustainable for some time, and continuing this way impacts our ability to deliver the quality and scope of education our students deserve. The need for change has only grown as we face staffing challenges and budget constraints that limit our capacity to enrich student experiences and outcomes. Now is the time to take proactive steps to strengthen our district and ensure that every dollar is spent in a way that directly benefits students. By addressing these structural issues now, we can create a district that is both financially sustainable and educationally enriching. Moving forward, we are committed to a thoughtful and transparent process, seeking input from our families and communities every step of the way to build a brighter, more equitable future for all our students.

• Will this plan be implemented in phases or all at once?
  • Given the magnitude of the proposed school changes, the implementation of this plan would require multiple phases of implementation. Changes of this magnitude would require careful, multi-year planning to ensure schools are well-designed and student learning is not disrupted.
  • ERS suggested a timeline for implementing proposed changes included in its final recommendations. The Board has tasked the Superintendent with conducting a feasibility review of ERS' recommendations.  

• What evidence are you looking at how the children are impacted by the closures?
  • Research is mixed on the impact of school consolidation on student outcomes, and those studies that exist often have limitations because it’s difficult to isolate the effect of school consolidation from other factors. Most of the research we’ve looked at suggest that the quality of the school students attend after closure is the factor that has the biggest impact on student outcomes.
  • For example, one study conducted by the Consortium of Chicago School Research looked at the impact of school closures in Chicago from 2001 to 2006. This study found that the announcement of school closures had a negative impact on student achievement, but that achievement levels one year after school closure were not significantly different than what would be expected if their school had not been closed. Furthermore, students that attended higher performing schools saw larger achievement gains than students attending lower performing schools.

• How can this transition take place in a way that doesn’t lose even more families?
  • The specifics around transition planning will be determined later in the process and decisions will be made by the District.  Retaining enrollment is a priority for PPS and this will be an important factor in transition planning.
• How will you make sure that school closures and consolidations will not disproportionately impact students who have been persistently underserved?
  • As part of its recommendations, ERS reviewed how different student groups (e.g. Black, Economically Disadvantaged, Students with Disabilities, ELL students, Hispanic students, etc.) experience school closure or grade reconfiguration.  These metrics are used to evaluate whether a recommendation disproportionately impacts specific student groups and is an important input into the decision-making process.  It is important to note that these figures are sensitive to individual school changes.
  • In addition, ERS has identified all schools in PPS over the past 25 years that have either been closed, experienced a grade reconfiguration, or repurposed for Early Childhood Centers.  All these changes have been detailed on District maps which have then been used to identify areas that have experienced disproportionate amount of school change.  This is an input into all scenario modeling.

• How do school closures, consolidations, and reconfigurations impact class sizes?
  • The impact of school closure, consolidation and reconfiguration on class sizes depends on a variety of factors, including any changes made to PPS’ school funding formula, staff vacancies and year-over-year enrollment change.
  • Class size increases are not the same as large class sizes, and all class sizes would remain below the “reasonable class sizes” for each grade as outlined in the PPS’ contract with the Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers.
• What thresholds are being used for school size, and where do these thresholds come from?
  • When developing the scenarios presented to the board on August 13th, ERS used a target enrollment range for each grade level. While these ranges were used as a guide for exploring closure, consolidation and reconfiguration options, our scenarios resulted in many schools with enrollment that fell above and below those ranges. When this happened, it was typically because consolidation and closure wasn’t possible or practical.
  • The target enrollment ranges ERS developed were based on estimates of how many students would need to be enrolled in a school to have the staff and resources necessary to provide the types of course offerings and supports identified through community engagement (e.g. World Language in K-5), if there were no changes made to the current funding formula. Those ranges were:
    • K-5: 350-500 students
    • 6-8: 450-650 students
    • 9-12: 750-1500 students
• Why is underutilization seen as a disadvantage?                                          When buildings are significant underutilized, it can present challenges for facilities and maintenance. First, the per-pupil cost to maintain those buildings is much higher, which takes money that could otherwise be invested in school programming. It can also spread facilities and maintenance staff thin by requiring them to cover more square footage and more buildings.

• Are any configurations being considered besides K-5, 6-8, 9-12, and why would K-5, 6-8, 9-12 work better?
  • There are several reasons for the proposal to transition to a standard K-5, 6-8 and 9-12 model. First, in many cases, this transition would increase enrollment in each grade level, which would allow for more homeroom teachers per grade in K-5 and more teachers in each content area in 6-8 and 9-12. Second, the proposal would align transition grades between neighborhood schools and magnet schools, which could increase interest and access in magnet programming in 6-8 and 9-12. Third, narrowing the number of grades each school teaches would allow educators and staff to focus on developmentally appropriate support, which is harder in K-8 and 6-12 schools.
  • During its final recommendations, ERS will share some key decision points around grade configuration that allow the board to explore alternatives as they deem appropriate.

• Why would K-5, 6-8, 9-12 schools work better?

  Shifting to a streamlined K-5, 6-8, and 9-12 structure aligns with research showing that these configurations support students' academic, social, and emotional growth. This model allows us to focus resources, staffing, and support tailored to each age group, ensuring clear transitions, and strengthening curriculum continuity. By establishing distinct stages, we create more effective programs, enhance teacher collaboration, and provide a cohesive path for student success at each developmental stage.

• What steps are being taken to prevent further student loss when programs close, and is there a plan to attract back lost students?

We understand that closing or consolidating programs raises concerns about students leaving the district. To prevent further loss, we are committed to creating a thoughtful transition process that prioritizes each student’s needs, providing support for them to thrive in their new school environments. We are enhancing our curriculum, expanding extracurriculars, and investing in the resources and facilities needed to ensure a high-quality education, so students continue to feel connected and engaged. To attract back families who have chosen other options, we are also launching new initiatives aimed at revitalizing our district and showcasing the unique strengths of our schools. This includes building stronger pathways to career and college, enhancing STEM and arts programs, and ensuring every school is equipped to meet the diverse needs of our students.

• How are magnet and other special programs being considered in the plan?
  • Magnet schools in PPS are a complicated issue. We have heard from many community members around the District that magnets are seen as inequitable because they exacerbate social and economic disparities across the diverse student body.  On the other hand, we have heard from families and students attending magnet schools that they value the unique offerings that magnet schools provide.
  • The final recommendation presented on October 15^th included several possible school changes for Magnet programs.  The current options that are under review include:
    • Limiting magnet programming to 6-8 and 9-12 schools only. This option would mean that existing K-5 magnet schools would transition to neighborhood schools and become part of the neighborhood feeder pattern. This would help PPS focus on creating a consistent, foundational K-5 experience for students across the city. 
    • Another option could be to keep Friendship (Montessori) as a full magnet due to the specialized nature of the Montessori model. The Montessori educational model is distinct from what other neighborhood schools would offer but keeping it open may also present equity challenges.
    • Creating a “neighborhood magnet” that operates like full magnets by enrolling students from across the city and providing quality programming while guaranteeing seats and identical programming for neighborhood students. Neighborhood magnets differ from the current partial magnet system by guaranteeing both seats and magnet programming for students within the school’s neighborhood boundaries. The plan proposes strategically locating neighborhood magnets in underserved communities with declining enrollment.
      • Neighborhood magnets in the current proposal include:
        • Arsenal 6-8 (in current building)
        • Obama 9-12 (in existing building)
        • Sci Tech 6-8 (in Milliones building)
        • Sci Tech 9-12 (in existing building)
        • ERS also recommended that Neighborhood Magnets be added to Pittsburgh Carrick and Westinghouse high schools.  
    • Under the current proposal, only CAPA 9-12 and Friendship (Montessori) will remain full magnets. The CAPA 6-12 model offers students with a passion for study in the creative and performing arts a challenging and integrated curriculum that equally provides world-class preparation for college and university study, and conservatory level preparation for artistic careers. To ensure student success in the intensive artistic instruction provided in one of eight art forms: dance, instrumental music, literary arts, piano, production technology, theater, visual arts and vocal music, it is recommended CAPA 9-12 maintain its full magnet status. 
    • Due to the success of the program and student achievement, ERS recommends maintaining the Pittsburgh CAPA 6-12 program at its current location due to significant investments in the facility and strong student performance.
• • In addition to the changes in the current proposal, other additional aspects of magnets should be carefully examined to ensure equity in magnet access and programming: specifically, lottery weights, eligibility criteria during application, and dismissal or rescission policies.
• What are the recommendations for special schools, such as Conroy, Pioneer, or Student Achievement Center not included in the current proposal?

  • As part of its expanded final recommendations, ERS has proposed changes to the District’s special schools and programs to align with its goal of creating more equitable and efficient educational pathways. Key recommendations include:

    • Pittsburgh Conroy will relocate to the vacant South Brook 6-8 facility.

    • The Pittsburgh Online Academy drop-in site will move to the vacant Roosevelt Intermediate facility.

    • The Student Achievement Center, currently located in Homewood, will also transition to the Roosevelt facility.

    • Gifted education services will be integrated into individual schools across the District, resulting in the closure of the Gifted Center.

    • Pittsburgh Clayton will remain at its current location.

ERS did not provide specific recommendations for Oliver Citywide Academy, leaving those decisions to District officials to address as part of ongoing planning efforts.

Why does the plan recommend eliminating K-5 magnet schools?

Limiting magnet programs to grades 6-8 and 9-12 would transition existing K-5 magnet schools into neighborhood schools, integrating them into local feeder patterns, based on revised attendance zones. This approach would enable the District to focus on providing a consistent, foundational K-5 experience for students citywide.

If I enroll my child into a magnet program that is recommended to change to a neighborhood school, will my child be able to stay in the magnet program?

In its final recommendations, ERS did not include a recommendation for a phase-out process for magnet programs. Any changes to the school portfolio would require a careful, multi-year plan to ensure schools are well-designed and prepared to support student transition. The District is unable to guarantee that students enrolled in a magnet school will be able to remain beyond the 2025-2026 school year.

If my child’s school configuration is slated to change based on the recommendations, can I enroll them now in what will be their new school to lessen transitions?

As there is yet to be approval of a final plan, the District cannot enroll students in schools based on the proposed recommendations.

Why is Montessori the only K-5 magnet in the ERS plan?

According to ERS, Pittsburgh Montessori offers a distinctive instructional model featuring multi-aged classrooms, self-directed learning, and requires a Montessori-certified staff.

What is a Neighborhood Magnet?

Neighborhood magnets would operate like full magnets by enrolling students from across the city while guaranteeing seats and identical programming to all students who reside in the attendance zone. Neighborhood magnets differ from the current partial magnet system by guaranteeing both seats and magnet programming for all students who reside within the school’s attendance zone. The plan proposes strategically locating neighborhood magnets in underserved communities with declining enrollment.

ERS recommends the following schools become neighborhood magnets:

· Arsenal 6-8 (International Baccalaureate Middle Year Program)

· Obama 9-12 (in existing building)

· Sci Tech 6-8 (in Milliones building)

· Sci Tech 9-12 (in existing building)

ERS also recommended that Neighborhood Magnets be added to Pittsburgh Carrick High School and Westinghouse 9-12.

Do any Partial Magnet programs still exist in the ERS Plan?

Yes. There were no changes recommended to the following partial magnet programs:

· Allderdice High School: Pre- Engineering

· Brashear High School: Computer Science

· Perry High School: JROTC

How were the recommendations for closures made?

Community feedback was among multiple factors ERS considered in making its final recommendations, including:

· Enrollment Trends

· Capacity, age, condition, and quality of school buildings

· Location of schools relative to where students live

· Student experiences in various schools

· School community dynamics

· Needs of special populations and historically marginalized communities

When will these school portfolio changes take effect?

No final decisions have been made regarding school closures and consolidations. If the Board votes to initiate a commentary period on the recommended changes, there will be a three-month window for public input. During this period, the community will be kept informed about the proposed changes and the next steps in the process. Any plans for closures or consolidations will require Board approval of a finalized plan before proceeding. No vote on school closures can occur prior to the completion of a Board approved three-month commentary period.

What is an Attendance Zone?

The geographic boundaries that determine what school you attend.

What is a Feeder Pattern?

The default progression K-12 i.e., proposed Faison K-5, Sterrett 6-8, Westinghouse 9-12

Is the District considering the alternative facilities plan presented by a group of parents?

The Superintendent and District continue to review feasibility, considering stakeholder input and an alternate plan presented by a group of District parents following ERS’s recommendations.