Closing the Achievement Gap

[204parent]

As boundaries are being discussed, there is a lot of talk about closing the achievement gap. What's the best way to close the gap? Should the district work harder with underachievers to increase their test scores, or should we just bus kids all over the district to average out the test scores?

[sleeplessinnpvl]

I think you should definitely work with the students instead of bussing them around. Look at the great job Young and Cowlishaw did in bringing up their scores from last year and it wasn't because they were bussed down to some other ES. In 2006 when this ugly word first came up, the gap between NV and WV was 7.4% using ISAT scores back then. Now, the current gap using current ISAT scores is around 5.24%. So the kids of WV closed the gap on their own without any help from the school board. This whole thing has been created to appease the whole perception of the two high schools, and when you make that a priority, it just feeds the whole false perception. The fact of the matter is that we will be closing the gap no matter where we put anyone because we have a third HS now. These numbers change yearly. They should focus on the variables that don't change. Now distance doesn't change. Enrollment is also a variable we can't forsee in the future but it is important. But to put the gap up there as being more important than distance really irks me.

edit: ISAT scores from school 2003-04, 04-05, 05-06, 06- 07
SB 94.0 91.1 95.9 95.7
Clow 92.8 94.2 95.1 95.1
Fry 93.4 92.4 95.4 95.9
Wht/Pet 89.8 89.1 94.9 96.1
Brooks 88.5 88.2 94.9 93.0
Steck 91.0 90.1 93.5 93.8
Watts 90.7 90.8 94.1 94.9
Kendall 92.2 89.6 93.6 93.6
Patters 92.6 92.0 93.6 95.2
WE 89.9 90.7 93.5 94.8
Graham 89.7 91.8 93.3 93.8
Owen 86.0 87.9 92.9 93.2
Welch 88.0 85.1 92.2 91.6
Builta 85.6 87.9 89.2 90.4
Young 86.6 83.1 89.6 96.3
BD 91.9 85.7 87.0 90.7
Cowl 81.6 77.7 84.1 92.1
McC 78.9 79.4 83.5 81.2
Gombert 78.1 75.3 82.5 82.1
LW 75.2 69.2 78.2 78.3
GT 79.8 76.6 76.3 80.9

Here is a list of the ISATs from 2003, 04, 05 and 06 I copied from another thread. Interesting to note when you look at the 06 value and the 03 value, almost all of our schools have increased their scores over time. So it proves instruction is the key. The only reason the board wants to do this is not for the kids, but for the reputation of the high schools. If they all have similar scores, one doesn't look better than the other.

[concerned]

geography is a constant, but test scores will change over time.

I have a struggling student in the system and I feel the district has failed him many times and pushes him through. I have had many discussions with teachers and social workers and because he is an average child they really don't do much for him. Bussing my child to another school would not solve his problems. Matter of fact it really upsets me that they would try and hide these children instead of helping them. Yes, it irks me too!!!

[blankcheck]

This is a no brainer question - Of course you want to increase the scores of underachievers.

[proschool]

What do you mean by bussing around?

These kids take the bus. I won't even respond to this one.

[steckmom]

Um, this is not necessarily an 'either or' proposition, so I refuse to vote.

Students will be taking buses regardless. Students are going to have to be bussed further because of the north site no matter what.

Do I think that to balancing achievement should be a factor in boundary determinations? Yes.

Do I think that the schools should improve the scores of underachievers? Also yes.

[casey]

steckmom said:

Um, this is not necessarily an 'either or' proposition, so I refuse to vote.

Students will be taking buses regardless. Students are going to have to be bussed further because of the north site no matter what.

Do I think that to balancing achievement should be a factor in boundary determinations? Yes.

Do I think that the schools should improve the scores of underachievers? Also yes.

I would agree that this isn't a very clear question and will also withhold any vote. I don't want kids bussed all over to average out test scores but I do think that our district should work harder with helping the underachieving students.

[sam2]

I would like the school board to answer this question: Why should we attempt to balance the test scores at all schools?

I think the answer is critical. To my simple mind, education comes first. Gerrymandering boundaries to average out test scores simply cannot help students. To the contrary, it serves to sweep the problem under the rug -- "our test scores are very good, we have no problems."

I understand that there are lots of reasons that students may not score well on tests. Still, the SB's own explanation of the last boundary changes included the objective of balancing performance. That suggests pockets of underachieving students. ( If the under-performing students were equally distributed now, there is no way that district-wide performance could be balanced by changing boundaries.) If you accept the SB premise that district-wide achievement can be balanced through tweaking attendance boundaries, logically, you have to accept that the under-performing students are currently concentrated somewhere, otherwise the goal of balancing achievement through boundary changes is moot.

Wouldn't those students be better served by focusing on their specific issues and helping them improve. Wouldn't that be most easily accomplished if they were not scattered throughout the district?

I don't pretend to have knowledge of our students abilities by school. However, if you accept the logic of the school board, then I think you have to accept that some schools have concentrations of students that need a different approach than they've been getting and I think that can best be handled at the individual school level. Their needs will not be served by simply moving them so that their test scores don't stand out from the overall average.

Education is, or should be, the first objective of our school system. Educate the students and the test scores will take care of themselves.

[steckmom]

Here's why I think the school district should attempt to balance achievement.

When you have a high percentage of low achieving students at a school, that school must use more resources to get those low performing students to meet standards. Because our schools do not have unlimited resources, the students who are already meeting or exceeding standards will not get the resources they deserve.

If you are willing to provide more resources to the schools with the greatest amount of underachieving students, then I'm in favor of ignoring achievement balance.

That said, I don't pretend to know all about the district's funding and I don't think we should come up with ridiculous boundary scenarios just to balance achievement. But I do think it should be a factor.

[twhl]

steckmom said:

Here's why I think the school district should attempt to balance achievement.

When you have a high percentage of low achieving students at a school, that school must use more resources to get those low performing students to meet standards. Because our schools do not have unlimited resources, the students who are already meeting or exceeding standards will not get the resources they deserve.

If you are willing to provide more resources to the schools with the greatest amount of underachieving students, then I'm in favor of ignoring achievement balance.

That said, I don't pretend to know all about the district's funding and I don't think we should come up with ridiculous boundary scenarios just to balance achievement. But I do think it should be a factor.

Steck - the results of trying to create "achievement balance" using boundaries is it really cant be achieved. It allows the District to claim many things will be balanced and the boundary solution for those below their learning levels - is now in place ?? There is no guarantee that having "less achievers" in the same class room will improve anything and they know that. In fact, the opposite may occur. Achieving / good students could also be affected - either by getting more attention because its easier for the instructor or getting less because more attention is needed elsewhere. When it came to participation, the "perfect score students" can intimidate the rest of class from raising their hands and participating in the discussion. In the classroom setting, wondering whether to raise your hand in front of your peers and ask a question that you maybe should know the answer to is hard to do, achiever or not.

Whats being done today, tomorrow and whats the plan 5 years from now. The achievement levels will always be distributed across the spectrum. Let's for now, forget any boundaries are changing, what is the District doing ? The achievement level distribution will change once the boundaries have been decided. The SB already knows where some of the academically challenged are and should be focusing on that and transfer those resources/staff they currently have allocated to remedy this problem. What say you SB - tell us what the plan is ? Redistributing those challenged and not sending the resources to accompany them wont work. What say you SB ?

Bottom line - using boundaries to balance the achievement gap is part but not the most important part of the matrix. Forget we are building a new high school - there is a problem here and needs to be addressed. Whats being done ?

[steckmom]

twhl said:

Steck - the results of trying to create "achievement balance" using boundaries is it really cant be achieved. It allows the District to claim many things will be balanced and the boundary solution for those below their learning levels - is now in place ?? There is no guarantee that having "less achievers" in the same class room will improve anything and they know that. In fact, the opposite may occur. Achieving / good students could also be affected - either by getting more attention because its easier for the instructor or getting less because more attention is needed elsewhere. When it came to participation, the "perfect score students" can intimidate the rest of class from raising their hands and participating in the discussion. In the classroom setting, wondering whether to raise your hand in front of your peers and ask a question that you maybe should know the answer to is hard to do, achiever or not.

Whats being done today, tomorrow and whats the plan 5 years from now. The achievement levels will always be distributed across the spectrum. Let's for now, forget any boundaries are changing, what is the District doing ? The achievement level distribution will change once the boundaries have been decided. The SB already knows where some of the academically challenged are and should be focusing on that and transfer those resources/staff they currently have allocated to remedy this problem. What say you SB - tell us what the plan is ? Redistributing those challenged and not sending the resources to accompany them wont work. What say you SB ?

Bottom line - using boundaries to balance the achievement gap is part but not the most important part of the matrix. Forget we are building a new high school - there is a problem here and needs to be addressed. Whats being done ?

I agree you can't completely balance achievement with boundaries and that is why I said it should be a FACTOR.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy the argument that high performing students intimidate others--that is really reaching. I also don't think that we should just change boundaries and ignore these underachieving students. I never suggested that.

The fact of the matter is that boundaries are being changed and achievement balance should be a factor.

I honestly believe that those who think we should ignore achievement are simply using it as an argument to stay at NV. I'm not saying you shouldn't stay at NV. I'm just saying I agree that the SD should look at achievement.

[twhl]

Never said anything about NV - I am asking for answers concerning the MS feeders and our WV that we attend. Dissapointed Steckmom. At least we know how you feel about the SW side.

[steckmom]

Wow. I didn't know you and these few posters represented all the feelings of the SW side.

[WeBe204]

steckmom said:

Wow. I didn't know you and these few posters represented all the feelings of the SW side.

Actually, I thought you had some really good points about achievment. Your agruement about ensuring there is enough funding to deal with the gap made sense. Until I read:

"I honestly believe that those who think we should ignore achievement are simply using it as an argument to stay at NV. I'm not saying you shouldn't stay at NV. I'm just saying I agree that the SD should look at achievement."

Then I just glazed over.

[steckmom]

brad204 said:

steckmom said:

Wow. I didn't know you and these few posters represented all the feelings of the SW side.

Actually, I thought you had some really good points about achievment. Your agruement about ensuring there is enough funding to deal with the gap made sense. Until I read:

"I honestly believe that those who think we should ignore achievement are simply using it as an argument to stay at NV. I'm not saying you shouldn't stay at NV. I'm just saying I agree that the SD should look at achievement."

Then I just glazed over.

Okay, I'll back off of that statement. It was meant to be inflammatory -- but not against the entire SW side-- and I apologize.

What I really think is that people are using this argument so that they get the boundary determination that they want.

I really don't have any ill will against the SW side or people wanting to stay at NV. I can understand wanting to stay at a nearby school. I want to stay at WV. But if achieving more balanced schools so that our district can heal, perform better over all and have a better reputation, thus resulting in my kids having to go to MV, then I'm okay with it.