Achievement Gap Widens

[rew]

Bob, it's an easy spreadsheet no need to guesstimate.. so easy why didn't the SD release the achievement scores? It was one of their criteria. They did the last time they proposed boundaries?

Maybe because WV lands at the bottom of the pile and their whole enlightened vision was a pile.

[bob]

archwinsome said:

...because there is a history of leaving school districts with a huge mess to clean up after one leaves with a retirement package.

I believe Dash doesn't vest into the Ill retirement system after this contract.

[twhl]

I believe that hmmm meant that of all the memos the Adm could and should post, this is the only one. it would appear to support thier boundary plan, but there are so many other factors. there should have either been a boat load of memos on many subjects or none at all. seems a little biased dont ya think Robert ??

[bob]

twhl said:

I believe that hmmm meant that of all the memos the Adm could and should post, this is the only one. it would appear to support thier boundary plan, but there are so many other factors. there should have either been a boat load of memos on many subjects or none at all. seems a little biased dont ya think Robert ??

Looks like HMMM meant there was a conspiracy about the bridge.
It was a huge argument by certain people in the Fry area. Maybe that is why they addressed the issue.

What other boundary issues should have had a memo? Travel times were addressed.

[Arch]

bob said:

archwinsome said:

...because there is a history of leaving school districts with a huge mess to clean up after one leaves with a retirement package.

I believe Dash doesn't vest into the Ill retirement system after this contract.

What happened in KY?

[Arch]

bob said:

twhl said:

I believe that hmmm meant that of all the memos the Adm could and should post, this is the only one. it would appear to support thier boundary plan, but there are so many other factors. there should have either been a boat load of memos on many subjects or none at all. seems a little biased dont ya think Robert ??

Looks like HMMM meant there was a conspiracy about the bridge.
It was a huge argument by certain people in the Fry area. Maybe that is why they addressed the issue.

What other boundary issues should have had a memo? Travel times were addressed.

Travel times were 'dressed' would be a better term.

[gatordog]

rew said:

For all their fancy talk, the proposed boundaries leave WVHS achievement worse off than it is now.

Current achievement for all test scores:

WVHS 88.4
NVHS 93.6

With the proposed BB boundaries the gap narrowed:

WVHS 89.4
MVHS 90.3
NVHS 93.3

But with the new proposed MWG boundaries gap widens:

WVHS 88.1
MVHS 91.3
NVHS 93.3

What happened to the BIG FIX??

There is no real difference at all in these numbers. Taking your number:

Current has range 88-94
BB had range 89-93
Proposed has range 88-93.

Where is the difference? These numbers are virtually identical. I think its misleading to say the achievement gap is "widening".

Lets just compare WV and NV now. My data shows around Jan 2006, when we were talking about this too, the achievement gap btw WV and NB was 9. Well now its less than 6. Not because any moving happened, but lower achieving students improved (well documented on this board and other places)

Is any HS school different or better if it gain or loses a fraction of point on its ISAT scores? Heck, I bet almost all the ES scores change more than half a point from year to year.

Yes, Its fair to talk about reassigning different areas to diff schools than what the admin proposed here. But I think it should be for other reasons (better geography, better MS splits, etc). It should not be to gain another few fractions of a point on a test score. I dont see what that buys the district.

[researching]

bob said:

had someone with a conflict of interest evaluate the pedestrian bridge

You have to prove to me the City of Naperville's and Park District's evaluation was a conflict of interest before I buy this.

Bob,

Please tell me where the Park District said anywhere in their statement that the bridge is an unsafe route for the school. The inference that you seem to have made with the Park District is exactly the reason I posted my earlier questions (see below):

It is interesting the way Ms. Zozulia’s information is put together.

She states that all sources agree that the 95th ST bridge is unsafe. However, of the three sources she quotes, only one states that it is unsafe (The City of Naperville).

I have a few questions about this:

1) Who was the individual that she spoke to (i.e. a City engineer, the City Manager) – It would help to know as we would want to make sure the person who stated this had the proper qualifications to make this judgement.

2) Did the City of Naperville ONLY state “the bridge will not be maintained by the city”?

3) Was the subsequent statement about the bridge “not being a safe walk route to school” a statement that was from the City of Naperville, or was that statement inferred from the City stating it would not maintain the bridge?

[twhl]

bob said:

twhl said:

I believe that hmmm meant that of all the memos the Adm could and should post, this is the only one. it would appear to support thier boundary plan, but there are so many other factors. there should have either been a boat load of memos on many subjects or none at all. seems a little biased dont ya think Robert ??

Looks like HMMM meant there was a conspiracy about the bridge.
It was a huge argument by certain people in the Fry area. Maybe that is why they addressed the issue.

What other boundary issues should have had a memo? Travel times were addressed.

you're kidding right ?

[twhl]

bob said:

twhl said:

I believe that hmmm meant that of all the memos the Adm could and should post, this is the only one. it would appear to support thier boundary plan, but there are so many other factors. there should have either been a boat load of memos on many subjects or none at all. seems a little biased dont ya think Robert ??

Looks like HMMM meant there was a conspiracy about the bridge.
It was a huge argument by certain people in the Fry area. Maybe that is why they addressed the issue.

What other boundary issues should have had a memo? Travel times were addressed.

like using a 27minute travel time for Welch, does that sound right to you Bob? amoung others - but as long as u say travel times are addressed then I guess thats good enough for me.

[rew]

I think the gap widening comment was meant to say that achievement scores at WV dropped with this proposal and a big focus of the SBs excitement around the north site was a "new WV". Which does not happen in this proposal.

I think McCarty goes to MV and all of Gombert goes to WV = good thing no split

And all of Owen stays at WV = good thing less commute time

ETA ... the gap calculating all test scores, current is 5.2, proposed is 5.1, BB would have been 3.9

We have longer commutes and wider achievement gap than at BB

[refbasics]

researching said:

bob said:

You have to prove to me the City of Naperville's and Park District's evaluation was a conflict of interest before I buy this.

Bob,

Please tell me where the Park District said anywhere in their statement that the bridge is an unsafe route for the school. The inference that you seem to have made with the Park District is exactly the reason I posted my earlier questions (see below):

It is interesting the way Ms. Zozulia’s information is put together.

She states that all sources agree that the 95th ST bridge is unsafe. However, of the three sources she quotes, only one states that it is unsafe (The City of Naperville).

I have a few questions about this:

1) Who was the individual that she spoke to (i.e. a City engineer, the City Manager) – It would help to know as we would want to make sure the person who stated this had the proper qualifications to make this judgement.

2) Did the City of Naperville ONLY state “the bridge will not be maintained by the city”?

3) Was the subsequent statement about the bridge “not being a safe walk route to school” a statement that was from the City of Naperville, or was that statement inferred from the City stating it would not maintain the bridge?

-------

is someone or some entity(city, park district, etc) going to block the bridge if it's not shoveled so people don't use it in snowy weather??

Does that mean people can only use the bridge from April - October?? seems like a waste of $$$??

[gatordog]

rew said:

But with the new proposed MWG boundaries gap widens:

WVHS 88.1
MVHS 91.3
NVHS 93.3

For what its worth...
my spreadsheet calcs for the proposed boundaries have:
WV=89.0
MV=91.5
NV=93.7

(i posted this in another thread, sorry for repost)

Its hard to even calculate these things within 0.5 tolerance!

[hmmm]

bob said:

twhl said:

I believe that hmmm meant that of all the memos the Adm could and should post, this is the only one. it would appear to support thier boundary plan, but there are so many other factors. there should have either been a boat load of memos on many subjects or none at all. seems a little biased dont ya think Robert ??

Looks like HMMM meant there was a conspiracy about the bridge.
It was a huge argument by certain people in the Fry area. Maybe that is why they addressed the issue.

What other boundary issues should have had a memo? Travel times were addressed.

Oh it's not just about the bridge. Come on, let's have a Welch person decide if the pedestrian bridge if viable. Then let's split the middle school and triple their driving time to HS. Show me ONE instance where the Fry area has caught a break in this process. You are all about proof after all.

Oh, and you are the last person who should be interpreting my posts for me.

My post was asking someone, anyone to point out the good points to this plan because other than some people being happy with the boundary recommendations, I see none.

[Arch]

hmmm said:

My post was asking someone, anyone to point out the good points to this plan because other than some people being happy with the boundary recommendations, I see none.

The good I have heard are from some who live close to MV and will have a much shorter commute. Heard good from a couple who work in the Diehl corridor, and heard good from someone staying at WV and someone staying at NV.

Haven't heard good from anyone now needing to travel farther to MV than they were to WV.