LTE 12/31/07 - Naperville Sun

[we4]

December 31, 2007

Larger high schools better for students

Congratulations to Naperville North and Naperville Central for making the top 3 percent of the best high schools in the country as ranked by U.S. News.
I would note that Adlai E Stevenson High School, enrollment 4,510, was the No. 77 ranked high school in the entire country.

Stevenson was the only Illinois, nonmagnet school to make the top 100 list. Stevenson is also one of the largest schools in Illinois. The "small schools are better" mantra is often something you will here repeated by the ignorant and uninformed. The facts are that larger schools offer a greater breadth of programs and opportunities for students to learn. Schools like Stevenson are proof of that!

I am sure a District 204 high school could make the list if the district leadership spent as much time on curriculum and quality teachers as they do on referenda, land acquisition and the building of half-empty schools.

Rita White

Naperville

[we4]

we4 said:

The facts are that larger schools offer a greater breadth of programs and opportunities for students to learn.

I would like to know if that statement is true.

I think if you searched the internet you will find studies and articles that suggest that small schools are just as good and offer the same programs as larger schools.

Maybe I'll just go do that.

[wvhsparent]

I guess one of the 1st places to look would be what are the sizes of the schools numbered 1 thru 76. That should give support or refute that claim.
www.usnews.com/articles/education/high-schools/2007/11/29/gold-medal-schools.html

FYI the #1 school has enrollment of 1723....Hmmmmm

Also....Spelling police alert in the published LTE (here should be hear) Don't they spell check?

[gatormom]

I hope Rita White approves of a tax hike.

In 2005-06 year, Stevenson spend $8303 on instruction per student, 204 spent $5653 per student for the same time period. Operating expenditures per student were huge for Stevenson, $13,308 to our $8639.

So I guess that means D204 needs to spend more money to get better schools. Wait a minute, I thought that Rita and Paul White were against spending more money in our schools.

[slp]

I've just about had it with the the Naperville Sun's repeated printing of editorials from the SAME people over and over and over and over and over.........

[Arch]

gatormom said:

I hope Rita White approves of a tax hike.

In 2005-06 year, Stevenson spend $8303 on instruction per student, 204 spent $5653 per student for the same time period. Operating expenditures per student were huge for Stevenson, $13,308 to our $8639.

So I guess that means D204 needs to spend more money to get better schools. Wait a minute, I thought that Rita and Paul White were against spending more money in our schools.

I believe they are against any tax for any reason and they backfill with BS to 'support' their 'stance' whether it's true or not.

I believe at one point in the past they claimed we did not need freshman centers.. but instead needed a 3rd HS. Convenient FlipFlop when the 3rd HS comes along..

[we4]

I don't know why this has gotten to me, but it has.

If the White's are so unhappy with the SB/SD and the "ignorant and uninformed", why don't they move out of the school district, move out of the state, leave the country, I don't care.

By the way, NV was ranked 607 out of 1300, WV was ranked 1252 out of 1300 and NNHS was ranked 1101 out of 1300 by Newsweek's 2007 Top 5% of US High Schools www.newsweek.com/id/39380. NCHS was not on this list.

[Arch]

we4 said:

I don't know why this has gotten to me, but it has.

I just smile and every time I see certain authors write LTEs I remind myself that everyone has a First Amendment right to make a fool of themselves.

[we4]

archwinsome said:

we4 said:

I don't know why this has gotten to me, but it has.

I just smile and every time I see certain authors write LTEs I remind myself that everyone has a First Amendment right to make a fool of themselves.

Excellent advice. I love it.

[lacy]

I hate to rain on everyone's parade here, and while I don't agree with everything she says, I think she has a point.

Why is it that NNHS and NCHS score higher than both NVHS and WVHS? (And I believe they do so consistently) Their enrollments are 3086 and 3134 - and their buildings are certainly not new and in the case of NCHS not very pretty. Their reading and math proficiency scores according to US News and World Report are 84% and 80.6% and 85.8% and 82.3%. NVHS's scores are reported as 77.4% and 76.6% and WVHS's are 70.4% and 65.5%.

I think we should be asking about the curriculum and quality of teachers. We have some really great teachers, but I also think we hire too many inexperienced ones. And I thinik it's true that our district is more focused on building schools, acquiring land, etc. Our combined enrollment (using the numbers reported on US news and World Report) shows that we currently have 1399 more high school students than District 203. That's not a whole other building full of kids (and teachers and administrators)

So should the dominant discussion be about building or should it be about improving the scores of the students in our district?

[Arch]

lacy said:

I hate to rain on everyone's parade here, and while I don't agree with everything she says, I think she has a point.

Why is it that NNHS and NCHS score higher than both NVHS and WVHS? (And I believe they do so consistently) Their enrollments are 3086 and 3134 - and their buildings are certainly not new and in the case of NCHS not very pretty. Their reading and math proficiency scores according to US News and World Report are 84% and 80.6% and 85.8% and 82.3%. NVHS's scores are reported as 77.4% and 76.6% and WVHS's are 70.4% and 65.5%.

I think we should be asking about the curriculum and quality of teachers. We have some really great teachers, but I also think we hire too many inexperienced ones. And I thinik it's true that our district is more focused on building schools, acquiring land, etc. Our combined enrollment (using the numbers reported on US news and World Report) shows that we currently have 1399 more high school students than District 203. That's not a whole other building full of kids (and teachers and administrators)

So should the dominant discussion be about building or should it be about improving the scores of the students in our district?

My wife and I have felt after years of being in the system that too many teachers just toss assignments at students without actually teaching them the skills they need to perform them. There seems to be some huge assumption that they either already know it or that actually teaching those skills somehow are someone else's responsibility other than the teacher's.

As for having 1399 more students than 203, I believe that at their current levels they are having huge problems with their capacity and in fact are in the works with generating a plan to move forward to solve that. So, by numbers we have 1399 more students than 203's over capacity which requires them to do something about it.

[wvhsparent]

lacy said:

I hate to rain on everyone's parade here, and while I don't agree with everything she says, I think she has a point.

Why is it that NNHS and NCHS score higher than both NVHS and WVHS? (And I believe they do so consistently) Their enrollments are 3086 and 3134 - and their buildings are certainly not new and in the case of NCHS not very pretty. Their reading and math proficiency scores according to US News and World Report are 84% and 80.6% and 85.8% and 82.3%. NVHS's scores are reported as 77.4% and 76.6% and WVHS's are 70.4% and 65.5%.

I think we should be asking about the curriculum and quality of teachers. We have some really great teachers, but I also think we hire too many inexperienced ones. And I thinik it's true that our district is more focused on building schools, acquiring land, etc. Our combined enrollment (using the numbers reported on US news and World Report) shows that we currently have 1399 more high school students than District 203. That's not a whole other building full of kids (and teachers and administrators)

So should the dominant discussion be about building or should it be about improving the scores of the students in our district?

Excellent points lacy, of which many of us have also noted in the past. It's not the building...it's the contents of that building.

What cannot be overlooked though is during the past decade. 204 was in explosive growth mode, whereas 203 was not. Sure they may have added some, but near as much as 204 has. Also when was the last new building built in 203?
With that growth you need to hire lots, and that usually means new teachers, Not a totally bad thing IMHO.
I think now that 204 is nearing buildout, you will see 204 begin that next phase where score improvement will be primary focus.
I also do not think the scores are that bad anyway. I also think the scores will probably be a little lower than 203, just due to the different demographics of 204.
The opportunities to excel in 204 are in place now, and actually I feel that 204 probably has more different programs/opportunities than 203 now also.

[doctorwho]

wvhsparent said:

lacy said:

I hate to rain on everyone's parade here, and while I don't agree with everything she says, I think she has a point.

Why is it that NNHS and NCHS score higher than both NVHS and WVHS? (And I believe they do so consistently) Their enrollments are 3086 and 3134 - and their buildings are certainly not new and in the case of NCHS not very pretty. Their reading and math proficiency scores according to US News and World Report are 84% and 80.6% and 85.8% and 82.3%. NVHS's scores are reported as 77.4% and 76.6% and WVHS's are 70.4% and 65.5%.

I think we should be asking about the curriculum and quality of teachers. We have some really great teachers, but I also think we hire too many inexperienced ones. And I thinik it's true that our district is more focused on building schools, acquiring land, etc. Our combined enrollment (using the numbers reported on US news and World Report) shows that we currently have 1399 more high school students than District 203. That's not a whole other building full of kids (and teachers and administrators)

So should the dominant discussion be about building or should it be about improving the scores of the students in our district?

Excellent points lacy, of which many of us have also noted in the past. It's not the building...it's the contents of that building.

What cannot be overlooked though is during the past decade. 204 was in explosive growth mode, whereas 203 was not. Sure they may have added some, but near as much as 204 has. Also when was the last new building built in 203?
With that growth you need to hire lots, and that usually means new teachers, Not a totally bad thing IMHO.
I think now that 204 is nearing buildout, you will see 204 begin that next phase where score improvement will be primary focus.
I also do not think the scores are that bad anyway. I also think the scores will probably be a little lower than 203, just due to the different demographics of 204.
The opportunities to excel in 204 are in place now, and actually I feel that 204 probably has more different programs/opportunities than 203 now also.

Also from what I understand a significant % of 203 teachers are retirement eligible - and the next few years will see many more new hires there as well. Let's face it, new hires help them balance the salary budget - ( and as a parent of a soon to be hopeful new hire somewhere - don't underestimate the different training / education the new hires have as well as some of the enthusiasm some lost after years in a role to offset at least some of the experience) -

[lacy]

I agree with many of the points made by you all. I've seen the same thing in high school that Arch mentions. Some teachers expect certain skills but they assume someone else has taught them and don't see it as their responsibility to do so (fortunately I haven't encountered this much - but I didn't like it when I did). And I agree that 204 does provide some exceptional opportunities to students. Certainly unlike anything available in my high school. And yes, new teachers are often the more enthusiastic ones - the kids certainly benefit from that.

But I would like to see the district focus more on curriculum and performance. There is no reason for us to consistently lag 203 in academic performance. And I'm absolutely sure that beautiful buildings have never educated a kid. Yes, we need space - but we shouldn't break the bank as we go about it.

[gatormom]

lacy said:

I agree with many of the points made by you all. I've seen the same thing in high school that Arch mentions. Some teachers expect certain skills but they assume someone else has taught them and don't see it as their responsibility to do so (fortunately I haven't encountered this much - but I didn't like it when I did). And I agree that 204 does provide some exceptional opportunities to students. Certainly unlike anything available in my high school. And yes, new teachers are often the more enthusiastic ones - the kids certainly benefit from that.

But I would like to see the district focus more on curriculum and performance. There is no reason for us to consistently lag 203 in academic performance. And I'm absolutely sure that beautiful buildings have never educated a kid. Yes, we need space - but we shouldn't break the bank as we go about it.

I think the issue we are facing is in fact how to build this school without breaking the bank. If the district didn't care, they would have started building on BB already. I wish they had. At least then, we wouldn't be worrying about new sites and boundaries and all that other fun stuff. Our only worry would have been how to get the district to approve more money for the building.