ALL THE DETAILS

What is the vote on Wednesday, June 25?

The PPS Board of Directors will vote on Resolution 8.11 to begin the legal process to permanently close 9 (nine) school buildings:

• Baxter (Student Achievement Center)
• Friendship (Montessori)
• Fulton
• McKelvey (Miller)
• Morrow Primary
• Schiller
• Spring Hill
• Woolslair
• Manchester

Why the Board should Vote NO on Resolution 8.11

• The report from Dr. Walters in May is a long document, but it’s not a Plan, and actually answers fewer questions than the previous (flawed) plan by ERS, the contractor

• The Board, and the public, must have more than a Plan-for-a-Plan, so they can evaluate the details and participate meaningfully

• It’s inauthentic to hold School Closure Public Hearings during the summer when families are least likely, and least able, to be engaged 

• The Board must retain their control of this process — if you have still have questions about what the plan actually entails, it would be irresponsible to vote yes

• The Resolution to permanently close schools should be the last step, after you have an understanding of what is included in the plan and if it’s possible to implement the massive changes in only one year

What does a YES vote mean?

• The Board would affirm that they are considering the permanent closing of 9 school buildings.

• This vote would schedule public hearings for each building (planned for the summer).

• A final vote to close any school cannot happen until at least three months after the hearings (planned for the fall).

Why this vote matters

• This vote opens the door to permanent closures before the Board and public have the final plan. Until there is full transparency and a complete plan, the Board should not authorize this step.

• While this is not the final vote to close 9 school buildings, it is the first and most critical step. Once the process starts, it becomes significantly harder to stop. Five "no" votes would be needed later to prevent a single closure.

What does a YES vote NOT mean?

• At the June 18 Agenda Review Meeting, the District Solicitor said: "The only commitment you’re making… is to have public hearings on the closing of these school buildings. The plan—which includes reconfiguration and other things—requires separate Board votes under the School Code."

• Despite this, the Superintendent has described this vote as a "green light" to begin implementation, even though many major details remain unknown.

What’s still missing

• After 15+ months, there is still only a Plan-for-a-Plan that lacks critical information the Board needs before taking this important vote to start permanently closing school buildings. 

• The public still does not have answers to basic questions: Where will students go to school? How will they get there? Who will teach them? What will class sizes be?

• Approving this resolution now is like hiring a contractor to build a house without seeing the blueprint, budget, or timeline—just a sketch that says “walls, doors, and windows.” Taking this vote with so many unknowns is irresponsible.

• We already know there are serious constraints: school bus driver shortages, PRT route cuts, hard-to-fill teaching positions, and no implementation budget. Moving forward under these conditions would be reckless and put students at risk.

Budget concerns

• Transition and implementation costs are not identified.

• The plan claims $5 million in transportation savings from cutting magnet busing, but does not account for added transportation costs for students who currently walk.

Transportation gaps

• No transportation plan has been shared. Transportation challenges not addressed. 

• Families don’t know if students will be riding PRT buses or school buses, or how long their commutes will be.

Staffing and program access

• Are there enough certified teachers for promised programs, including World Language, STEM, special education, and arts?

• Without staffing, promises of new academic offerings are not realistic.

What will be in place in Year 1?

• What exactly will students and families see in Year 1? Year 2? Year 3? The plan claims everything will be implemented in one year, but we’ve also heard that some elements (like the Houses program) will start as pilots. Capital upgrades are spread out over seven years – what is expected to be completed each of the 7 years? 

Rushed implementation will hurt students

• Taking this first step without a viable, transparent, and fully developed plan is reckless. This is not a call to do nothing, it’s a call to do it right. Students will suffer if this process is rushed or poorly executed.

Classroom impact

• Will consolidating students into fewer buildings increase class sizes?

• What is being done to ensure smaller classes and individual support?

High school students left behind

• The Plan includes NO CHANGE in high school enrollment and no plan to expand course offerings at the high school level. One major reason for this reorganization was to consolidate students and eliminate small schools so every school could offer more programs and advanced coursework. With this plan, inequities will remain.

• Source: 6/18/25 Agenda Review meeting, Director Yael Silk read the Walters Administration’s answers to questions: “Question 12: What will high school programs look like in the first year of implementation? Answer: High school programs have not been slated for significant changes to their current programs.”

Missing enrollment projections

• The current plan does not show expected enrollment numbers by school. Earlier draft plans did include projections. The current version also fails to acknowledge likely enrollment loss when families choose to leave the district due to these changes.

Charter renewals vs. district instability

• The Board is voting this month to renew three charter schools for five years offering those schools stability while pushing disruptive changes onto PPS students and families.

Summer hearings undermine engagement

• Hearings are being planned for the summer, when families are less likely to be engaged. The same approach was used last year and shut many families out of the process.

Repeating past mistakes

• In the past, PPS has responded to declining enrollment by forcing students to move in order to fill buildings. That strategy did not improve outcomes — it caused harm. Displacement widened inequities.

• The plan mentions a process to review enrollment periodically to see if more schools should close. This approach is not about growth. It actually engineers further declines. There is no plan to increase enrollment.

Unrealistic timeline for massive changes

• Most of the changes are set to begin in the 2026-27 school year. If the final vote happens in fall 2025, that gives the administration only one year to implement an enormous set of changes.

• There is no clear plan or timeline for the following:

• Transportation (especially with unknown PRT service cuts)

• Staffing and transition plan (in collaboration with the teachers' union)

• Communication with families (many are still unaware this is happening and many are hard to reach)

• Thousands of IEP reviews and meetings

• Approval from the PA Department of Education

• Approval from PA Bureau of Special Education for revised Special Ed Plan

• Updated Magnet Policy

• New letter of agreement with the Wilkinsburg School District

• Professional development for new WIN and Houses programs

• New scheduling plans

Attendance zone inequities remain 

• Revised Attendance Zone maps were quietly posted on the PPS website on Friday, June 13, with no list of changes provided. One major change affects the Lincoln-Lemington-Belmar neighborhood. Students were originally slated to attend:
  Lincoln → Arsenal IB Middle → Obama IB High School. Now, under the revised map, students from this neighborhood would attend: Lincoln → Arsenal IB Middle → Westinghouse High School. Where is the equity in this decision? Why are only Lincoln-Lemington-Belmar students being denied IB continuity from grades 6–12, while students from other neighborhoods retain it?

• The district lifted up strengthening school communities as a feature of the Plan, yet 3 elementary schools – Sunnyside, Lincoln, and Minadeo – are split up after 5th grade into two different feeder patterns. The neighborhood of Hazelwood is split into 3 elementary schools. 

“Neighborhood magnet” is still not defined

• The district has used “Neighborhood Magnet” without ever clearly defining what it means. How is it different from partial magnets?

• When will proposed changes to the District’s Magnet Policy be released?

More questions and concerns

• See more questions and concerns from the community.