The Pittsburgh Public Schools board will resume discussing school closures and consolidations after rejecting a plan in November.
The PPS school board voted 8-0 Wednesday to reconsider the district’s Future-Ready Plan that would shutter nine school buildings and reconfigure grade levels, among other changes. Board member Emma Yourd was not present and did not vote on the resolution. The vote does not mean the district will immediately move to close schools, but it allows the board to discuss the plan in future meetings.
“I am in favor of opening up a discussion, recognizing that there is still considerable disagreement in the public and among the board, and it is imperative that we approach this decision or this discussion in a way that we are recognizing that difficult decisions will have to be made,” said board member Tracey Reed, one of three who supported the plan in November.
Board President Gene Walker — who voted against the plan in November after months of stalwart support — told Public Source discussions about the plan might take place over the next few months. Even if the Future-Ready Plan is ultimately approved, he said he does not expect any closures or consolidations until the 2027-28 school year.
In November, the school board voted down the plan following public pressure. Since then, voters elected three new board members, who have all supported school closures. New board member Eva Diodati, who replaced Jamie Piotrowski to represent District 7, brought the motion to reconsider the plan. The motion needed to come from a new board member or a member who voted against the plan previously.
Board member Devon Taliaferro, who rejected the plan in November and has repeatedly called for increased transparency in process, said she supports revisiting the plan but would not vote to advance it in its current form.
“If there are select people making the decision to say this should come back, but it not necessarily be communicated as a whole … I think, makes it difficult for us to even have trust in one another as board members, and it makes it extremely difficult to have trust [for] the public,” she said.
The plan had been in the works for longer than two years. By closing nine school buildings, the district expected to save approximately $102.8 million in costs over the next seven years. It would have also required the district to spend $453.4 million in capital investments through 2032. The plan could, however, cut annual maintenance costs and bring down the district’s operating deficit until 2028.
Key recommendations included going back to traditional K-5, 6-8 and 9-12 grade configurations, phasing out most of the elementary magnet programs except Montessori, and expanding arts and language programs in K-5 schools.
Nine school buildings were slated to be closed: Manchester K-8, Spring Hill K-5, Schiller 6-8, Montessori K-5 Friendship building, Fulton PreK-5, Miller PreK-5, Woolslair PreK-5, Morrow K-5 and Student Achievement Center.
During a public hearing on Monday, some parents and community members expressed their displeasure with revisiting the plan. Some said the district needed an entirely new plan, one that involves the community.
Woolslair parent Valerie Webb-Allman said voting down the plan in November “was an opportunity to build something with the community that would work for students and parents.
“We do not need to keep kicking that can up the street because that can is rusty and busted. Leave it there,” she added.
Holly Munson, who has a child at Schiller, said she would support some aspects of the plan, such as moving gifted education to home schools or launching a pilot program for changing grade configurations and gathering data to track any savings and improved outcomes for Black students, English learners or students with an IEP.
“According to your own board rules, the only reason you would bring back this resolution is if you had essential new information,” she said. “But PPS has not shared any meaningful new information with the public, so this feels really disingenuous.”
Walker said while there could be amendments to the original plan, he personally does not think creating a new plan is sensible.
“I think it’d be hard-pressed for [the superintendent] to go back and try to create something brand new, but I don’t know what ultimately it’ll look like at the end, so we’ll have to see what those discussions look like over the next several months.”
Lajja Mistry is K-12 education reporter at Pittsburgh’s Public Source and can be reached at lajja@publicsource.org.
