|
|
Post by steckmom on Apr 21, 2008 13:43:16 GMT -6
Why would those test results cause the SB to depart from BB? I'm pretty sure the achievement gap is smaller at BB than AME. IIRC, the Title 1 schools were better split with the BB plan than the AME plan. If they are so worried about test scores, why aren't they persuing BB? I was under the impression that the achievement gap was worse with AME--that was something I just didn't get, after things like the 'albatross comment' and the concern of achievement in the BB boundary decision--it just didn't make sense. So maybe it was the NCLB that caused the push for AME and the current boundary plan? Maybe it's not overall test scores, but a shifting of the subgroups. I don't know. |
|
|
|
Post by jftb on Apr 21, 2008 13:43:32 GMT -6
Question for all you attorneys out there. "The school board" is named on the BB and NSFOC lawsuit. If a SB member resigns between now and when the trial (or discovery) starts, does that excuse the sb member from testifying or deposition? Or can they sopena anyone they feel has relevant information? Resignation would not excuse them from the lawsuit. I'm not an attorney, but once you're named, you're named. And yes, anyone with relevant information can receive a subpoena. Not only an English teacher, but a Government one as well. Good to wear many hats to be hired these days. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 21, 2008 13:44:05 GMT -6
Boundaries were decided before the 2006 vote. Since that meeting, locking in 5A, they were DONE. They only came back into play (according to the timeline of the District) from Mid/end January (site selection) until Mid February (approval of the boundaries)... then DONE again for at least the past 2 months. Are you implying they were working on these boundaries the past 2 years WHILE we were condemning the BB land and moving forward with that trial?  ? That would track with the 4/07 date we saw on a site plan... Things that make you go Hmm... I was born at night... but not last night. No....arch, shame on you of all people for making assumptions on my posts and shouting conspiracy. That is so unlike you.  All I said was they have had, in the last two years, several non-normal things to deal with that have taken away their focus. Little things, here and there, like making up 17 different boundary plans in order to make people happy. Then, having to go back to square one when the jury verdict came in. Now, having to deal with the loss again of the MWG pull out and subsequent AME purchase. Now, lawsuit after lawsuit. I just see the kids taking a back burner to this. Is it the parents's fault? No. Is it the SB's fault? No. Fate has dealt us some crummy cards. But one has to wonder how all of this plays into their ability to focus on the kids 100% right now. You believe this is fate and a 'no fault' situation? The administration is paid very well to deal with these things. That is their job. If one doesn't like cleaning up messes, one should not make them in the first place. Many said, just pay the money and buy the land and break ground in October. Everything that has happened since is because of that change in published direction. |
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on Apr 21, 2008 13:46:59 GMT -6
Another thing I'm wondering about is the future of NCLB. If a Democrat takes the White House this fall, will the whole plan be scrapped? I don't know, but from what little I know about the NCLB it isn't the answer to our prayers for improving education nationwide. I don't know what will happen, but my guess is that even if the Democrats scrap the NCLB, some sort of program will be put in place. IMHO, it probably will be better in some areas and worse in others. |
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on Apr 21, 2008 13:48:00 GMT -6
Question for all you attorneys out there. "The school board" is named on the BB and NSFOC lawsuit. If a SB member resigns between now and when the trial (or discovery) starts, does that excuse the sb member from testifying or deposition? Or can they sopena anyone they feel has relevant information? Resignation would not excuse them from the lawsuit. I'm not an attorney, but once you're named, you're named. And yes, anyone with relevant information can receive a subpoena. Not only an English teacher, but a Government one as well. Good to wear many hats to be hired these days. Sorry, I meant to get to this. It's true, they could be subpoenaed. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 21, 2008 13:48:02 GMT -6
Question for all you attorneys out there. "The school board" is named on the BB and NSFOC lawsuit. If a SB member resigns between now and when the trial (or discovery) starts, does that excuse the sb member from testifying or deposition? Or can they sopena anyone they feel has relevant information? Resignation would not excuse them from the lawsuit. I'm not an attorney, but once you're named, you're named. And yes, anyone with relevant information can receive a subpoena. Not only an English teacher, but a Government one as well. Good to wear many hats to be hired these days. I beliee the SB is an entity ( not an individual ) therefore I do not see any exemption. Also leaving a position does not absolve an individual of actions taken while they held office. |
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 21, 2008 13:50:50 GMT -6
Resignation would not excuse them from the lawsuit. I'm not an attorney, but once you're named, you're named. And yes, anyone with relevant information can receive a subpoena. Not only an English teacher, but a Government one as well. Good to wear many hats to be hired these days. I beliee the SB is an entity ( not an individual ) therefore I do not see any exemption. Also leaving a position does not absolve an individual of actions taken while they held office. So if the SB is an entity, do they just look at the actions of a SB as a whole, or can they focus on the actions of one person w/in the board? In other words, are the emails sent out by MM really reflective of the SB as a whole? |
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on Apr 21, 2008 13:53:21 GMT -6
I beliee the SB is an entity ( not an individual ) therefore I do not see any exemption. Also leaving a position does not absolve an individual of actions taken while they held office. So if the SB is an entity, do they just look at the actions of a SB as a whole, or can they focus on the actions of one person w/in the board? In other words, are the emails sent out by MM really reflective of the SB as a whole? If he was acting as a representative/agent of the SB, then yes, his actions will be considered the actions of the SB. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 21, 2008 13:54:41 GMT -6
Good question, if the Title 1 schools are more balanced, achievement is more balanced, lawsuits go away, construction could have started six months ago... WHY DID THEY LEAVE BB? The T1 schools were NOT more balanced- that is the key here. 6/8 would have remained @ WVHS. T1 makes penalties for NCLB non compliance stricter ,again T1 does not equal poor scores - so one cannot and should never make that 1:1 correlation. Lots of items going into T1 funding... attainment scores more balanced at BB, but overall scores have no effect on NCLB compliance. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 21, 2008 13:55:37 GMT -6
So if the SB is an entity, do they just look at the actions of a SB as a whole, or can they focus on the actions of one person w/in the board? In other words, are the emails sent out by MM really reflective of the SB as a whole? If he was acting as a representative/agent of the SB, then yes, his actions will be considered the actions of the SB. thanks SMOM , appreciate your knowledge on this stuff |
|
|
|
Post by jftb on Apr 21, 2008 13:58:13 GMT -6
Another thing I'm wondering about is the future of NCLB. If a Democrat takes the White House this fall, will the whole plan be scrapped? I don't know, but from what little I know about the NCLB it isn't the answer to our prayers for improving education nationwide. I don't know what will happen, but my guess is that even if the Democrats scrap the NCLB, some sort of program will be put in place. IMHO, it probably will be better in some areas and worse in others. Wasn't at all exalting NCLB....was wondering as per this discussion, what it means for Indian Prairie, WV in particular, if this program gets scrapped. Would there be any longer a need to "balance" the achievement as per Federal funding (has anyone figured this out....is funding tied to achievement?) |
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 21, 2008 14:12:03 GMT -6
I must say, the NCLB is a questionable project at best. Here is some interesting facts from the other board.
Another thing. In Illinois, the percentage of children in a subgroup who must score either "meets" or "exceeds" goes up just about every year by 7.5%. For this year, that number is 62.5%. IN 2014, that number will be 100%. So in 2014, if even one child fails the exam, the school is considered not in compliance.
What is our state going to do when every single school doesn't meet these standards eventually? You got to admit, this is pretty strict.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 21, 2008 14:12:53 GMT -6
Someone should offer a 'How to take standardized tests' after/before school course.
It would benefit every test taken, even ACT/SATs. I'd be surprised if that inexpensive act alone didn't bounce some numbers in the right direction.
|
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Apr 21, 2008 14:13:23 GMT -6
Good question, if the Title 1 schools are more balanced, achievement is more balanced, lawsuits go away, construction could have started six months ago... WHY DID THEY LEAVE BB? The T1 schools were NOT more balanced- that is the key here. 6/8 would have remained @ WVHS. T1 makes penalties for NCLB non compliance stricter ,again T1 does not equal poor scores - so one cannot and should never make that 1:1 correlation. Lots of items going into T1 funding... attainment scores more balanced at BB, but overall scores have no effect on NCLB compliance. That's what I was thinking - the subgroups making AYP is the problem, not the overall scores. If the subgroups are shuffled and higher-performing subgroups were moved into WV that would impact meeting AYP for NCLB, right? |
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on Apr 21, 2008 14:16:03 GMT -6
I must say, the NCLB is a questionable project at best. Here is some interesting facts from the other board. Another thing. In Illinois, the percentage of children in a subgroup who must score either "meets" or "exceeds" goes up just about every year by 7.5%. For this year, that number is 62.5%. IN 2014, that number will be 100%. So in 2014, if even one child fails the exam, the school is considered not in compliance. What is our state going to do when every single school doesn't meet these standards eventually? You got to admit, this is pretty strict. This is why it would really bug me if the reason for clinging to a north site and these boundaries were simply because of the NCLB. That and the fact that the NCLB is probably going to change anyway. If it were true, it would be a very shortsighted decision. |
|
?
