|
|
Post by d204mom on Apr 20, 2008 12:13:11 GMT -6
This was absolutely the very first thing I thought was going on when Popp got moved.
If WV is classified as a failing school the district has to allow kids to transfer to a non-failing school and provide transportation.
This also explains the "pants on fire" approach to getting MV open in 2009. I have a sinking feeling those poor kids will spend their first year in teepees on Eola if necessary.
Too bad they have chosen to tear this district apart and ruin us financially instead of just helping the kids that need help.
|
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Apr 20, 2008 12:23:05 GMT -6
No it does not. Well, I take that back. Moving some lower performing students to another school might do something, but I'm not sure what because performance is calculated on %, not numbers. We'd have less lower performing kids, but if the same ratio couldn't meet standards, we would have the same problem. But moving higher performing white kids in wouldn't do a thing because we're not meeting standards in sub-groups even though our overall performance could be considered very good. My concern is that we're in year 5 here with not meeting standards. You have to wonder if that is driving some of this, which I think is interesting and kind of sad that it's all we can come up with. So adding high performing students to WV or moving some low performing students out doesn't make a difference under the NCLB? If the boundaries were chosen in order to move higher-performing subgroups into WV that would make a difference. They know exactly which elementary schools would need to be moved in order to accomplish that as they know the performance at each school broken down by subgroups. |
|
|
|
Post by fence on Apr 20, 2008 12:34:22 GMT -6
Interesting. That would be quite the admirable solution, wouldn't it? Of course, having nothing to do with education and everything to do with numbers. District 204, where learning is a shell game. Anyway, 2009 would be a necessity if this is in fact our "WV restructuring" plan. That'll be fun. Especially the first few years when WV will be the only school totally over capacity with all new personnel, since that's what is being called for by NCLB. No it does not. Well, I take that back. Moving some lower performing students to another school might do something, but I'm not sure what because performance is calculated on %, not numbers. We'd have less lower performing kids, but if the same ratio couldn't meet standards, we would have the same problem. But moving higher performing white kids in wouldn't do a thing because we're not meeting standards in sub-groups even though our overall performance could be considered very good. My concern is that we're in year 5 here with not meeting standards. You have to wonder if that is driving some of this, which I think is interesting and kind of sad that it's all we can come up with. If the boundaries were chosen in order to move higher-performing subgroups into WV that would make a difference. They know exactly which elementary schools would need to be moved in order to accomplish that as they know the performance at each school broken down by subgroups. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Apr 20, 2008 12:42:23 GMT -6
Interesting. That would be quite the admirable solution, wouldn't it? Of course, having nothing to do with education and everything to do with numbers. District 204, where learning is a shell game. Anyway, 2009 would be a necessity if this is in fact our "WV restructuring" plan. That'll be fun. Especially the first few years when WV will be the only school totally over capacity with all new personnel, since that's what is being called for by NCLB. If the boundaries were chosen in order to move higher-performing subgroups into WV that would make a difference. They know exactly which elementary schools would need to be moved in order to accomplish that as they know the performance at each school broken down by subgroups. Which is why this whole situation is so ironic - sorry, Watts, you don't have the right subgroups. Welcome WE and Fry, you do. |
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 20, 2008 12:49:08 GMT -6
Does anyone know if it is an advantage teaching and resource-wise to spread these groups out? Might it be easier to accommodate those kids if there are less at each school? I don't agree with sweeping them under the rug, but I do think putting them in a smaller school atmosphere might help.
|
|
|
|
Post by macy on Apr 20, 2008 12:52:55 GMT -6
Interesting. That would be quite the admirable solution, wouldn't it? Of course, having nothing to do with education and everything to do with numbers. District 204, where learning is a shell game. Anyway, 2009 would be a necessity if this is in fact our "WV restructuring" plan. That'll be fun. Especially the first few years when WV will be the only school totally over capacity with all new personnel, since that's what is being called for by NCLB. Which is why this whole situation is so ironic - sorry, Watts, you don't have the right subgroups. Welcome WE and Fry, you do. BINGO! Neat little statistics for the spreadsheet. |
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on Apr 20, 2008 12:57:41 GMT -6
Interesting. That would be quite the admirable solution, wouldn't it? Of course, having nothing to do with education and everything to do with numbers. District 204, where learning is a shell game. Anyway, 2009 would be a necessity if this is in fact our "WV restructuring" plan. That'll be fun. Especially the first few years when WV will be the only school totally over capacity with all new personnel, since that's what is being called for by NCLB. Which is why this whole situation is so ironic - sorry, Watts, you don't have the right subgroups. Welcome WE and Fry, you do. Is this just speculation or is this really true? If it is true, then the SBs AME push makes more sense. I don't agree with it, but it helps understand their motives. |
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 20, 2008 13:05:45 GMT -6
Which is why this whole situation is so ironic - sorry, Watts, you don't have the right subgroups. Welcome WE and Fry, you do. Is this just speculation or is this really true? If it is true, then the SBs AME push makes more sense. I don't agree with it, but it helps understand their motives. Well, it's not like the push has been in the last year. The SB has acknowledged the old gap since 2006 and we all know it was important then. Maybe they actually do want to do something about it so they are pushing. I don't know. But I still think that if they do have a plan, it's best to put these kids where they can focus on them instead of having so many at one school, they get ignored. What happened to Young? Why the fantastic test scores this year? Was anything different done? |
|
|
|
Post by yeson321 on Apr 20, 2008 13:09:23 GMT -6
There was a group moved out of Young and into McCarty. I don't know anything about the group, but something had to have impacted the scores other than a fantastic job done by 100% of the population. Compare the report cards for 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. They contain great stats. Is this just speculation or is this really true? If it is true, then the SBs AME push makes more sense. I don't agree with it, but it helps understand their motives. Well, it's not like the push has been in the last year. The SB has acknowledged the old gap since 2006 and we all know it was important then. Maybe they actually do want to do something about it so they are pushing. I don't know. But I still think that if they do have a plan, it's best to put these kids where they can focus on them instead of having so many at one school, they get ignored. What happened to Young? Why the fantastic test scores this year? Was anything different done? |
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 20, 2008 13:35:09 GMT -6
There was a group moved out of Young and into McCarty. I don't know anything about the group, but something had to have impacted the scores other than a fantastic job done by 100% of the population. Compare the report cards for 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. They contain great stats. Didn't Young also get a new principal recently? Maybe plans are underway and this was a test school. Did they move a certain amount or the whole group? If they moved part of them, then to me this seems like what they are trying to do in the HS level. Get smaller groups into schools so that more attention can be given to them. I would be interested to see the test scores of the individuals that were moved too. Does this also explain why weird satellite areas were moved in and out of Watts with this last boundary change? |
|
|
|
Post by fence on Apr 20, 2008 13:55:06 GMT -6
I'm sure small groups would be an advantage. I don't mean to imply that this district doesn't have good educators with good motives. I know that we are making changes to address things, and maybe restructuring might not be a good thing, in order to create smaller groups for teaching purposes. But I guess this whole situation is just really aggravating to me because I believe it should have been an upfront issue for discussion. This district has alot of good people if you just give them the chance. I am 100% behind doing what it takes to improve the education of our kids. I am 100% in favor of going to WV if it means that I can help, or my child can help, or we can work to build a successful and diverse school we can all learn from and be proud of. What I am not in favor of is trying to pretend like there is no problem, mock people who say there is, and try to unnaturally speed things up because we couldn't meet NSLB guidelines over the past 5 years, and now it's restructure or die. So this is why we're restructuring, this is the smoking gun, and this is why we're in a hurry and making the decisions we're making, only no one tells us that, and instead insists that we're out of our minds if we have a problem with WV. When there is an obvious good reason for that perception that no one feels like talking about in public. Because it's some kind of dirty little secret, which in my opinion is the worst kind of disservice we can do. WV is an "albatross" because we insist on pretending that there's no problem. And because we get overly defensive over it. I think we can be a successful district after this debacle, but again, that requires disclosure and participation by all of us. Not secrets and half-truths and red herrings to avoid talking about the real issues. Does anyone know if it is an advantage teaching and resource-wise to spread these groups out? Might it be easier to accommodate those kids if there are less at each school? I don't agree with sweeping them under the rug, but I do think putting them in a smaller school atmosphere might help. |
|
|
|
Post by yeson321 on Apr 20, 2008 14:26:04 GMT -6
There was a group moved out of Young and into McCarty. I don't know anything about the group, but something had to have impacted the scores other than a fantastic job done by 100% of the population. Compare the report cards for 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. They contain great stats. Didn't Young also get a new principal recently? Maybe plans are underway and this was a test school. Did they move a certain amount or the whole group? If they moved part of them, then to me this seems like what they are trying to do in the HS level. Get smaller groups into schools so that more attention can be given to them. I would be interested to see the test scores of the individuals that were moved too. Does this also explain why weird satellite areas were moved in and out of Watts with this last boundary change? Young's scores went up and McCarty's went down. If they were trying to provide smaller groups to improve test scores, IMHO, there would have been the reverse switch => taking students from McCarty and placing them at Young. |
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 20, 2008 14:41:04 GMT -6
Didn't Young also get a new principal recently? Maybe plans are underway and this was a test school. Did they move a certain amount or the whole group? If they moved part of them, then to me this seems like what they are trying to do in the HS level. Get smaller groups into schools so that more attention can be given to them. I would be interested to see the test scores of the individuals that were moved too. Does this also explain why weird satellite areas were moved in and out of Watts with this last boundary change? Young's scores went up and McCarty's went down. If they were trying to provide smaller groups to improve test scores, IMHO, there would have been the reverse switch => taking students from McCarty and placing them at Young. You're right. I didn't see that they had put them at McCarty. Don't know where this group lived but it seems they just added more of a burden on McCarty and therefore, scores went down. |
|
|
|
Post by 3woodgal on Apr 20, 2008 15:02:11 GMT -6
Can not meeting NCLB standards eventually be a catalyst to closing a school? I hope not. Someone find Joe Clark.....we have an opening don't we? |
|
|
|
Post by WeBe204 on Apr 20, 2008 16:49:50 GMT -6
I was trying to come up with something interesting to say. But I am just going to go the easy route and second 100% what Fence said below. I would have rather the SB just been honest with their desires rather than put us/me through this ridiculous process. Instead of talking about the need for a NEW WVHS or the potential for the school to become an albatross they could have just said look we have a problem and we need help. I now get the need for 2009. This need does not insult my intelligence either  I like that... I'm sure small groups would be an advantage. I don't mean to imply that this district doesn't have good educators with good motives. I know that we are making changes to address things, and maybe restructuring might not be a good thing, in order to create smaller groups for teaching purposes. But I guess this whole situation is just really aggravating to me because I believe it should have been an upfront issue for discussion. This district has a lot of good people if you just give them the chance. I am 100% behind doing what it takes to improve the education of our kids. I am 100% in favor of going to WV if it means that I can help, or my child can help, or we can work to build a successful and diverse school we can all learn from and be proud of. What I am not in favor of is trying to pretend like there is no problem, mock people who say there is, and try to unnaturally speed things up because we couldn't meet NSLB guidelines over the past 5 years, and now it's restructure or die. So this is why we're restructuring, this is the smoking gun, and this is why we're in a hurry and making the decisions we're making, only no one tells us that, and instead insists that we're out of our minds if we have a problem with WV. When there is an obvious good reason for that perception that no one feels like talking about in public. Because it's some kind of dirty little secret, which in my opinion is the worst kind of disservice we can do. WV is an "albatross" because we insist on pretending that there's no problem. And because we get overly defensive over it. I think we can be a successful district after this debacle, but again, that requires disclosure and participation by all of us. Not secrets and half-truths and red herrings to avoid talking about the real issues. Does anyone know if it is an advantage teaching and resource-wise to spread these groups out? Might it be easier to accommodate those kids if there are less at each school? I don't agree with sweeping them under the rug, but I do think putting them in a smaller school atmosphere might help. |
|
I like that...