The Big and the Small of it.
10 years ago
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Michigan is worse off than us.
I'm doing some research on the funding woes for education. I read an interesting article in the local paper when I visited my family last week. I will share a comparison of a small Michigan district about a tenth our size with Evansville's approach for next year's budget. Stay tuned; these calculations take time.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Incognito for a few days.
I may not have computer access for a few days. If you send me a note or post a comment, I'll be at the mercy of computer updates. Look for another post next week. By then, things should be copacetic. I hope to attend the board meeting, but conflicts may prevent me from going. Stay cool, go to the pool (between the raindrops).
Sunday, June 20, 2010
School Board Committee Meeting Agenda June 28th at 5:30pm
Click on the title to see the agenda for the committee meeting of the whole scheduled for June 28th at 5:30 pm. Note the location is in the new "District Board and Training Center." This is a newly created Board Meeting location, probably for the meetings of the whole which are a tight squeeze in the district office conference room when ex-officio members and other administrators are included. It was Mrs. Feeney's classroom until now and the entrance is just north of the District Office, in the recess leading to the fifth grade hallway.
Topics include the Board Development committee draft of a vision statement, finance and policy. Finance must close the books by June 30, so that will be an instructive part of the meeting. The Board Development Vision Statement process is stalled where it was when I last attended one of the meetings in April. They have prioritized it first on the agenda to complete the process. The plan in April was to come up with a "straw man" vision to run by the administrators, then the staff in a roll out which gradually adds more voices of the community, and presumably more ideas, to insure a vision that is concise and useful.
Some people may find this an exercise in futility. To these people, I must emphasize that it is very difficult to prioritize district needs when the board is struggling with to grasp of the long term vision of the district. Any assistance in prioritizing needs is welcome in this day of shrinking school funding. Without a guiding vision, the squeaky wheel often gets the grease and the prevalent board persona is reactive, not proactive. This is no way to run a business with a 20 million dollar plus budget. A formal vision would enable board members to use it as a litmus test for ideas and projects brought before them for approval. I commend them for continuously refocusing on this topic, despite the roadblocks they have encountered in achieving their goal. I think the time and effort they have expended on this process will benefit them in the long run.
Topics include the Board Development committee draft of a vision statement, finance and policy. Finance must close the books by June 30, so that will be an instructive part of the meeting. The Board Development Vision Statement process is stalled where it was when I last attended one of the meetings in April. They have prioritized it first on the agenda to complete the process. The plan in April was to come up with a "straw man" vision to run by the administrators, then the staff in a roll out which gradually adds more voices of the community, and presumably more ideas, to insure a vision that is concise and useful.
Some people may find this an exercise in futility. To these people, I must emphasize that it is very difficult to prioritize district needs when the board is struggling with to grasp of the long term vision of the district. Any assistance in prioritizing needs is welcome in this day of shrinking school funding. Without a guiding vision, the squeaky wheel often gets the grease and the prevalent board persona is reactive, not proactive. This is no way to run a business with a 20 million dollar plus budget. A formal vision would enable board members to use it as a litmus test for ideas and projects brought before them for approval. I commend them for continuously refocusing on this topic, despite the roadblocks they have encountered in achieving their goal. I think the time and effort they have expended on this process will benefit them in the long run.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Eagle Eye View: ECSD Five Year Proficiency Indices
WARNING: Mind numbingly boring data analysis to follow. Sadly, I find this kind of stuff fascinating and fun to do. I hope you are better informed by the end of the post.
Click on the post to log onto the DPI WINSS system data section if you want to check the reference points here. Type in Evansville to get to our data.
As often occurs when evaluating data sets, one exercise in number crunching leads to another idea on how to better review the data to get a more complete picture of what the data is trying to tell us. As I was delving into Evansville WKCE Achievement data to figure out the details of how TRIS met AYP criteria, I discovered a series of charts that suggested that the reading proficiency for the district as a whole gradually declined over five consecutive years (all students, combined data) from 2005-2006 to 2009-2010. I thought to myself, "maybe this data isn't alarming anybody because they are only going back one year at a time to view changes."
This post will summarize the results of looking at the district as a whole, treating the data to a "safe harbor" calculation from year 1 to year 5 for Reading and Math for three categories of students: all students, students with disabilities and students without disabilities. This information further encouraged the evaluation of each school in all the above categories to best pinpoint where resources need to be placed to most quickly resolve any issues.
Note: All data refer to the increase or decrease in the percentage of non-proficient students, or those scoring either minimum or basic on the WKCE.
District wide evaluation of WKCE % non-proficient from 05-06 to 09-10:
A). Reading:
All students: 11.5% to 15.5%, which amounts to a 34.8% increase in only five years when treated to a safe harbor calculation ((4/11.5)X100). This concerned me so I broke it down by disability subgroup, which gives data both for students with disabilities and students without disabilities.
Students with disability (SWD): 45.8% to 52.9%, or a 15.5% increase in five years when treated with a safe harbor calculation.
Students without disability(Sw/oD): 5.8% to 8.9%, which amounts to a 53.4% increase in the percentage of non-proficient students in the last five years in this subgroup of the district as a whole when a safe harbor calculation is done.
A first glance at the raw data for these three subgroups draws one's attention to the very high percentage of non-proficient students with disabilities in our district. Further scrutiny of the data by safe harbor treatment will reveal that a healthy portion of the increase in non-proficient students comes from the students without disabilities subgroup. Sure, there is an unacceptably high percent of students with disabilities that has non-proficient achievement and this needs to be addressed. But one must remember that this group accounts for only 14-16% of the student population of the grades tested in the last five years. To wit, 50% of 136 kids is the same as 8.8% of 774. It's all very well to theoretically consider these percents and values, and putting the data in a consistent frame of percentage allows us to easily compare annual data where raw numbers would change, but the bottom line is the kids. From 05-06 to 09-10, the number of students with disabilities that was non-proficient in our district increased from 54 to 72, or eighteen more kids over five years. For students without disabilities, the number of non-proficient students increased from 41 kids to 69 kids in the same time frame, an increase of 28 students. Our number of non-proficient readers in both subgroups is increasing at an alarming rate.
Next we'll take a brief look at the district-wide math data which indicates a relatively flat performance over five years. It is good that the math data has not followed the increasing pattern of the reading data, but flat achievement does not bode well for the next few years as the Proficiency Index to achieve AYP increases by 10.5% a year until 2014, when POOF! all children in the USA will be proficient or advanced.
B). Math
All Students: 17.2% to 16.7%, a 2.9% decrease in five years. At least it's going the right direction.
Students with disabilities: 55.1% to 49.3%, a 10.5% decrease in 5 years. YEAH! Way to go!
Students without disabilities: 10.9% to 11.0%, a 0.9% increase in 5 years.
By these data, it is clear that the entirety of the decrease in percentage of non-proficient students in math was due to the students with disabilities, since the students without disability performance was essentially stagnant. A shout out to all those math teachers and hard working kids.
Now let's delve into the data for each school to see if there's somewhere we need to focus that we haven't discovered yet! I'm doing executive summaries here because I'm sick of typing these numbers in. If you want the actual data, please email me.
TRIS
Reading:
All students: 36.6% increase in percent of non-proficient students in 5 years.
Students with disabilities (SWD): 54.8% increase.
Students without disabilities(Sw/oD): 18.9% increase.
Math:
All Students: 4.5% increase in the percent of non-proficient students in 5 years.
SWD: 5.7% increase.
Sw/oD: 1.5% increase.
JC McKenna
Reading:
All Students: 4.1% increasein the percent of non-proficient students in 5 years.
SWD: 16% decrease.
Sw/oD: 64.7% increase.
Math:
All Students: 23.9% decrease in the percent of non-proficient students in 5 years.
SWD: 18.7% decrease.
Sw/oD: 23.3% decrease.
EHS
Reading:
All Students: 76.5% increase in the percent of non-proficient students in 5 years.
SWD: 28.6% decrease.*
Sw/oD: 207.5% increase.
Math:
All Students: 42% increase in the percent of non-proficient students in 5 years.
SWD: 38.1% decrease.*
Sw/oD: 105% increase.
*Five years ago, 100% of the students with disabilities in grade 10 scored non-proficient on the state achievement test for both reading and math. This anomalous baseline gives the incorrect impression that the programs for these students have dramatically improved. One must remember that this accounted for 9 students at the time. A look at the data over time is instructive. In reading, this percentage immediately dropped to 46.9% the following year but has steadily risen to 71.4% this year, or a 52.2% increase in the percentage of non-proficient students in four years, per a safe harbor index. In Math, the percentage of non-proficient SWD dropped to 56.3% the following year. This index has gradually risen to 61.9% this year, or a 9.9% increase in the percentage of non-proficient students in four years using a safe harbor calculation.
Because the high school data is derived from only one grade, this data is subject to the "grade ability fluctuation" which is exaggerated in smaller districts. Teachers will tell you that every class has its own character and personality as well as abilities. So year-to-year changes should be viewed with caution. But when a pattern persists over the course of five years, it's time to do some serious introspection and investigation as to cause. And then fix it! Continuation down this path at the high school will result in a collision course with the increasing Proficiency Indices prescribed in the NCLB act. Mr. Everson has surely taken these data into consideration as he introduces a new class at the high school to address reading strategies. I don't know what is in place for math yet, but the data suggest that needs to be addressed as well.
Math achievement at TRIS indicates they are holding their own, but need vigilance. The reading achievement data indicate that the problems at TRIS had been going on for a long time and last year they simply reached the threshold at which they no longer met AYP. It will take a sustained effort to maintain the improvement they have achieved this year.
JC McKenna again hits it out of the ballpark in math with decreases in non-proficient math achievement across the board. Go Team! They have also begun to turn around the reading achievement for SWD with a double digit decrease in the percent of non-proficient students over five years.
My greatest concern is illustrated by the universal increase in the percentage of non-proficient students without disabilities at all schools on the reading achievement test. I am really fearful that the root cause of this is limited resources and by extension limited funding. Too many teachers are stretched too thin. Could it be that shifting resources to improve the (inexcusably poor) achievement of students with disabilities has left the rest of the kids in limbo to fend for themselves? There are only so many hours in a day. Focusing intensive resources on one aspect of learning will by definition cause a void in others as N (teaching resources) remains constant. It is a mathematical inevitability. Data at JC McKenna seem to validate this assertion. While the reading achievement of SWD at JC McKenna posted a 16% decrease in the percentage of non-proficient students, the achievement of students without disability has worsened. 3.4% of this subgroup was non-proficient in 05-06 and by 09-10 that had increased to 5.6%, a 64.7% increase by safe harbor index.
The district has spent a lot of money and training time for staff to become adept at Differentiated Instruction (DI). The administration spent much energy trying to convince the Board to which I belonged that this instructional model will meet the needs for ALL levels of learners, be they Special Ed., Moderate or Gifted. In theory, that is true. But examples shown to the board during this time frame inevitably involved special ed. I personally spent years trying to get teachers to provide this "differentiated instruction" experience to our GT children. I pounded tables to get our daughters the kind of instruction they deserved and needed. We finally capitulated and shelled out hundreds of dollars for our daughters to receive the kind of programming that challenged them and kept them engaged in the learning process. Funds that were matched by the district in kind FOR EVERY GT kid enrolled from the district in WCATY (out of district accelerated) programs. Exactly what has the administration offered or threatened these teachers with that I didn't? How did they get them to agree to provide DI? This kind of instruction is NOT assembly line ready as so many teachers are used to supplying. It's a much greater challenge and is not the slam-dunk administration will have one believe. I repeatedly asked for data that would corroborate improvements in achievement where the DI had been implemented and was given minimal or "tentative" data. One person from whom Ms. Daane asked for data was affronted that anybody would challenge the model with a request for data. "Nobody asked for data before they used the abysmal training practices for special ed students in the 60s." Oh good grief. If your model is not robust enough to withstand data scrutiny, keep it to yourself.
So that's my bird's eye view. I hope all the remediation works its magic and the district continues to show improved achievement in reading and math. I hope I am wrong that our average students have been left high and dry, but the data seem to indicate that this is the case. I am not encouraged by this birds eye view of our district's past reading and math achievement. Most of all, I cannot say that I am confident for the future ECSD reading and math achievement indices to pass AYP. Unless the good ship Evansville reverses course, our declining achievements will eventually run afoul of the increasing target goals. I will be very happy if achievement results over the next few years make me eat my words.
Click on the post to log onto the DPI WINSS system data section if you want to check the reference points here. Type in Evansville to get to our data.
As often occurs when evaluating data sets, one exercise in number crunching leads to another idea on how to better review the data to get a more complete picture of what the data is trying to tell us. As I was delving into Evansville WKCE Achievement data to figure out the details of how TRIS met AYP criteria, I discovered a series of charts that suggested that the reading proficiency for the district as a whole gradually declined over five consecutive years (all students, combined data) from 2005-2006 to 2009-2010. I thought to myself, "maybe this data isn't alarming anybody because they are only going back one year at a time to view changes."
This post will summarize the results of looking at the district as a whole, treating the data to a "safe harbor" calculation from year 1 to year 5 for Reading and Math for three categories of students: all students, students with disabilities and students without disabilities. This information further encouraged the evaluation of each school in all the above categories to best pinpoint where resources need to be placed to most quickly resolve any issues.
Note: All data refer to the increase or decrease in the percentage of non-proficient students, or those scoring either minimum or basic on the WKCE.
District wide evaluation of WKCE % non-proficient from 05-06 to 09-10:
A). Reading:
All students: 11.5% to 15.5%, which amounts to a 34.8% increase in only five years when treated to a safe harbor calculation ((4/11.5)X100). This concerned me so I broke it down by disability subgroup, which gives data both for students with disabilities and students without disabilities.
Students with disability (SWD): 45.8% to 52.9%, or a 15.5% increase in five years when treated with a safe harbor calculation.
Students without disability(Sw/oD): 5.8% to 8.9%, which amounts to a 53.4% increase in the percentage of non-proficient students in the last five years in this subgroup of the district as a whole when a safe harbor calculation is done.
A first glance at the raw data for these three subgroups draws one's attention to the very high percentage of non-proficient students with disabilities in our district. Further scrutiny of the data by safe harbor treatment will reveal that a healthy portion of the increase in non-proficient students comes from the students without disabilities subgroup. Sure, there is an unacceptably high percent of students with disabilities that has non-proficient achievement and this needs to be addressed. But one must remember that this group accounts for only 14-16% of the student population of the grades tested in the last five years. To wit, 50% of 136 kids is the same as 8.8% of 774. It's all very well to theoretically consider these percents and values, and putting the data in a consistent frame of percentage allows us to easily compare annual data where raw numbers would change, but the bottom line is the kids. From 05-06 to 09-10, the number of students with disabilities that was non-proficient in our district increased from 54 to 72, or eighteen more kids over five years. For students without disabilities, the number of non-proficient students increased from 41 kids to 69 kids in the same time frame, an increase of 28 students. Our number of non-proficient readers in both subgroups is increasing at an alarming rate.
Next we'll take a brief look at the district-wide math data which indicates a relatively flat performance over five years. It is good that the math data has not followed the increasing pattern of the reading data, but flat achievement does not bode well for the next few years as the Proficiency Index to achieve AYP increases by 10.5% a year until 2014, when POOF! all children in the USA will be proficient or advanced.
B). Math
All Students: 17.2% to 16.7%, a 2.9% decrease in five years. At least it's going the right direction.
Students with disabilities: 55.1% to 49.3%, a 10.5% decrease in 5 years. YEAH! Way to go!
Students without disabilities: 10.9% to 11.0%, a 0.9% increase in 5 years.
By these data, it is clear that the entirety of the decrease in percentage of non-proficient students in math was due to the students with disabilities, since the students without disability performance was essentially stagnant. A shout out to all those math teachers and hard working kids.
Now let's delve into the data for each school to see if there's somewhere we need to focus that we haven't discovered yet! I'm doing executive summaries here because I'm sick of typing these numbers in. If you want the actual data, please email me.
TRIS
Reading:
All students: 36.6% increase in percent of non-proficient students in 5 years.
Students with disabilities (SWD): 54.8% increase.
Students without disabilities(Sw/oD): 18.9% increase.
Math:
All Students: 4.5% increase in the percent of non-proficient students in 5 years.
SWD: 5.7% increase.
Sw/oD: 1.5% increase.
JC McKenna
Reading:
All Students: 4.1% increasein the percent of non-proficient students in 5 years.
SWD: 16% decrease.
Sw/oD: 64.7% increase.
Math:
All Students: 23.9% decrease in the percent of non-proficient students in 5 years.
SWD: 18.7% decrease.
Sw/oD: 23.3% decrease.
EHS
Reading:
All Students: 76.5% increase in the percent of non-proficient students in 5 years.
SWD: 28.6% decrease.*
Sw/oD: 207.5% increase.
Math:
All Students: 42% increase in the percent of non-proficient students in 5 years.
SWD: 38.1% decrease.*
Sw/oD: 105% increase.
*Five years ago, 100% of the students with disabilities in grade 10 scored non-proficient on the state achievement test for both reading and math. This anomalous baseline gives the incorrect impression that the programs for these students have dramatically improved. One must remember that this accounted for 9 students at the time. A look at the data over time is instructive. In reading, this percentage immediately dropped to 46.9% the following year but has steadily risen to 71.4% this year, or a 52.2% increase in the percentage of non-proficient students in four years, per a safe harbor index. In Math, the percentage of non-proficient SWD dropped to 56.3% the following year. This index has gradually risen to 61.9% this year, or a 9.9% increase in the percentage of non-proficient students in four years using a safe harbor calculation.
Because the high school data is derived from only one grade, this data is subject to the "grade ability fluctuation" which is exaggerated in smaller districts. Teachers will tell you that every class has its own character and personality as well as abilities. So year-to-year changes should be viewed with caution. But when a pattern persists over the course of five years, it's time to do some serious introspection and investigation as to cause. And then fix it! Continuation down this path at the high school will result in a collision course with the increasing Proficiency Indices prescribed in the NCLB act. Mr. Everson has surely taken these data into consideration as he introduces a new class at the high school to address reading strategies. I don't know what is in place for math yet, but the data suggest that needs to be addressed as well.
Math achievement at TRIS indicates they are holding their own, but need vigilance. The reading achievement data indicate that the problems at TRIS had been going on for a long time and last year they simply reached the threshold at which they no longer met AYP. It will take a sustained effort to maintain the improvement they have achieved this year.
JC McKenna again hits it out of the ballpark in math with decreases in non-proficient math achievement across the board. Go Team! They have also begun to turn around the reading achievement for SWD with a double digit decrease in the percent of non-proficient students over five years.
My greatest concern is illustrated by the universal increase in the percentage of non-proficient students without disabilities at all schools on the reading achievement test. I am really fearful that the root cause of this is limited resources and by extension limited funding. Too many teachers are stretched too thin. Could it be that shifting resources to improve the (inexcusably poor) achievement of students with disabilities has left the rest of the kids in limbo to fend for themselves? There are only so many hours in a day. Focusing intensive resources on one aspect of learning will by definition cause a void in others as N (teaching resources) remains constant. It is a mathematical inevitability. Data at JC McKenna seem to validate this assertion. While the reading achievement of SWD at JC McKenna posted a 16% decrease in the percentage of non-proficient students, the achievement of students without disability has worsened. 3.4% of this subgroup was non-proficient in 05-06 and by 09-10 that had increased to 5.6%, a 64.7% increase by safe harbor index.
The district has spent a lot of money and training time for staff to become adept at Differentiated Instruction (DI). The administration spent much energy trying to convince the Board to which I belonged that this instructional model will meet the needs for ALL levels of learners, be they Special Ed., Moderate or Gifted. In theory, that is true. But examples shown to the board during this time frame inevitably involved special ed. I personally spent years trying to get teachers to provide this "differentiated instruction" experience to our GT children. I pounded tables to get our daughters the kind of instruction they deserved and needed. We finally capitulated and shelled out hundreds of dollars for our daughters to receive the kind of programming that challenged them and kept them engaged in the learning process. Funds that were matched by the district in kind FOR EVERY GT kid enrolled from the district in WCATY (out of district accelerated) programs. Exactly what has the administration offered or threatened these teachers with that I didn't? How did they get them to agree to provide DI? This kind of instruction is NOT assembly line ready as so many teachers are used to supplying. It's a much greater challenge and is not the slam-dunk administration will have one believe. I repeatedly asked for data that would corroborate improvements in achievement where the DI had been implemented and was given minimal or "tentative" data. One person from whom Ms. Daane asked for data was affronted that anybody would challenge the model with a request for data. "Nobody asked for data before they used the abysmal training practices for special ed students in the 60s." Oh good grief. If your model is not robust enough to withstand data scrutiny, keep it to yourself.
So that's my bird's eye view. I hope all the remediation works its magic and the district continues to show improved achievement in reading and math. I hope I am wrong that our average students have been left high and dry, but the data seem to indicate that this is the case. I am not encouraged by this birds eye view of our district's past reading and math achievement. Most of all, I cannot say that I am confident for the future ECSD reading and math achievement indices to pass AYP. Unless the good ship Evansville reverses course, our declining achievements will eventually run afoul of the increasing target goals. I will be very happy if achievement results over the next few years make me eat my words.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Nancy Hurley is a Great Asset to the School Board!
There was a lot of information shared at the meeting tonight. Many changes are being proposed at the High School, all of which have merit, none of which is without some kind of challenge for implementation. The most immediate proposal is for 2 days per month to become "late start" days for students (9:30a.m.) in order to have professional learning community (PLC) collaboration time for the teachers. This will enable staff to better focus on determining strategies that work and using them consistently across the curriculum. This sounds great and could reap enormous benefits as time goes on. There are baseline measures in place to determine if student achievement is improved per the administration. This is an important piece that many educators neglect in their enthusiasm to implement new ideas. Kudos to the High School to remember this critical piece of the puzzle.
Other ideas included introducing a Senior Project graduation requirement beginning with the class of 2014, a proposed "wall of fame, wall of service," etc. to honor alumni in the armed services and those who have gone on to outstanding achievements in areas such as music, drama and sports. Mr. Keister also updated the board on results of the comprehensive counseling pilot program in 9th and 11th grades. It was warmly received by most parents.
I was right that money was freed up from this year's budget so the district could rescind the lay-off notice and keep a great teacher fully employed in our district.
There was no general turnout of Poms for the approval of Co-curricular Participation policies. I guess we can all read them online by next week to see what changes were made.
Nobody but me seems to object on general principals to the change in the NHS policy. The Bullying Policy proposed changes may need to be tweaked to follow the guiding principals the DPI has yet to publish for a deadline in August. They might just wait until the DPI issues the guidelines before taking it to third reading.
What I was most impressed with during this meeting was Nancy Hurley's insightful questions and poise throughout. She especially had very good questions about the Senior Project regarding equity, consistency, cost to the district, scope and credit that just drove to the heart of the matter. What a wonderful addition to the School Board she is. Thank you for serving, Nancy.
Other ideas included introducing a Senior Project graduation requirement beginning with the class of 2014, a proposed "wall of fame, wall of service," etc. to honor alumni in the armed services and those who have gone on to outstanding achievements in areas such as music, drama and sports. Mr. Keister also updated the board on results of the comprehensive counseling pilot program in 9th and 11th grades. It was warmly received by most parents.
I was right that money was freed up from this year's budget so the district could rescind the lay-off notice and keep a great teacher fully employed in our district.
There was no general turnout of Poms for the approval of Co-curricular Participation policies. I guess we can all read them online by next week to see what changes were made.
Nobody but me seems to object on general principals to the change in the NHS policy. The Bullying Policy proposed changes may need to be tweaked to follow the guiding principals the DPI has yet to publish for a deadline in August. They might just wait until the DPI issues the guidelines before taking it to third reading.
What I was most impressed with during this meeting was Nancy Hurley's insightful questions and poise throughout. She especially had very good questions about the Senior Project regarding equity, consistency, cost to the district, scope and credit that just drove to the heart of the matter. What a wonderful addition to the School Board she is. Thank you for serving, Nancy.
"Regular School Board Meeting" Tonight at 5:30 in the TRIS LMC
I know this isn't the Eagle Eye View post, but I forgot I wanted to post the Board Meeting Agendas on this blog. I'm sort of hopelessly single-minded once I sink my teeth into a project with data. Anyway...
Click on the post for a listing of tonight's agenda. Discussion highlights include a new Senior Project Graduation requirement beginning with the class of 2014 and the Bullying policy (in its second reading). Action Item highlights include approvals of the co-curricular contracts, RESCINDING the Lay-Off Notice (!) and the third (final) reading of several policies including the National Honor Society (change was to increase candidate's GPA from 3.5 to 3.6) and the much debated co-curricular participation, fund raising and student conduct and dress policies brought forward for review after the poms debacle.
Just a few remarks about some of the topics. Bullying Policy: If you have suggestions or ideas for the Bullying Policy and Administration thereof, please come and share!
Co-curricular contracts: The cost of our co-curricular contracts exceeded $140,000 last year. This still flabbergasts me and I don't understand how what used to be a small stipend in the olden days has become a significant budget expense. Those who disagree with me say "BAH-in a budget of 20 million dollars, this is less than one percent. Pittance!" That approach may well have merit, but I will never be able to call $140,000 pittance. This is the equivalent of two entry level teachers including their benefits! Or think of it as numerous computers and software for our kids. Most of these advisors are already teachers in our district so these contract values are simply added into their salary base. Teachers who take on multiple roles get some hefty "stipends" added to their salaries. I'm not completely convinced about the cost/benefit ratio for this out of control aspect of co-curricular offerings, which continues to spiral because everybody is always trying to keep up with the Joneses.
Lay off notice: YEAH!
Co-curricular policies approval: I'll be looking for the "return of the Poms" at the meeting tonight, as they seem to have done every month since January whenever there is any action on the agenda regarding "co-curricular participation." I don't know what the final version of the policy looks like, but I trust it will meet the needs of Poms and Administration alike.
NHS participation Policy: As for the GPA increase for NHS consideration, I am not opposed per se to matching NHS candidacy GPA with our "high honor" GPA cut-off. However, I am opposed to the Administration supporting two very different sets of standards by bringing forth this proposed change. It's completely OK to raise the standards for the kids who work hard, have goals and set their priorities (high honors kids aren't all Einsteins, you know), but for those who have challenges in this area, keep that GPA at an abysmal 1.5. I also find it hard to believe that the administration thinks its OK to have violated their own policy since 2006 (when the policy was last revised) by excluding students with GPAs of 3.5 to 3.5999 from NHS consideration, even after it was brought to their attention. The technically correct response to this conundrum was to grandfather in everyone who wanted to be considered with the 3.5-3.6 GPAs and work on changing the policy so it matches practice. It is not ever acceptable to tell a kid and their parents "Oops, our policy doesn't match our practice. We've never done it this way and too bad for you." If the third reading goes through tonight, this should be Day One of using 3.6 as the standard.
I hope to get to the meeting tonight. I'm jealous that the board meetings are rumored to go much faster now that the committee meetings are "of the whole" board.
Click on the post for a listing of tonight's agenda. Discussion highlights include a new Senior Project Graduation requirement beginning with the class of 2014 and the Bullying policy (in its second reading). Action Item highlights include approvals of the co-curricular contracts, RESCINDING the Lay-Off Notice (!) and the third (final) reading of several policies including the National Honor Society (change was to increase candidate's GPA from 3.5 to 3.6) and the much debated co-curricular participation, fund raising and student conduct and dress policies brought forward for review after the poms debacle.
Just a few remarks about some of the topics. Bullying Policy: If you have suggestions or ideas for the Bullying Policy and Administration thereof, please come and share!
Co-curricular contracts: The cost of our co-curricular contracts exceeded $140,000 last year. This still flabbergasts me and I don't understand how what used to be a small stipend in the olden days has become a significant budget expense. Those who disagree with me say "BAH-in a budget of 20 million dollars, this is less than one percent. Pittance!" That approach may well have merit, but I will never be able to call $140,000 pittance. This is the equivalent of two entry level teachers including their benefits! Or think of it as numerous computers and software for our kids. Most of these advisors are already teachers in our district so these contract values are simply added into their salary base. Teachers who take on multiple roles get some hefty "stipends" added to their salaries. I'm not completely convinced about the cost/benefit ratio for this out of control aspect of co-curricular offerings, which continues to spiral because everybody is always trying to keep up with the Joneses.
Lay off notice: YEAH!
Co-curricular policies approval: I'll be looking for the "return of the Poms" at the meeting tonight, as they seem to have done every month since January whenever there is any action on the agenda regarding "co-curricular participation." I don't know what the final version of the policy looks like, but I trust it will meet the needs of Poms and Administration alike.
NHS participation Policy: As for the GPA increase for NHS consideration, I am not opposed per se to matching NHS candidacy GPA with our "high honor" GPA cut-off. However, I am opposed to the Administration supporting two very different sets of standards by bringing forth this proposed change. It's completely OK to raise the standards for the kids who work hard, have goals and set their priorities (high honors kids aren't all Einsteins, you know), but for those who have challenges in this area, keep that GPA at an abysmal 1.5. I also find it hard to believe that the administration thinks its OK to have violated their own policy since 2006 (when the policy was last revised) by excluding students with GPAs of 3.5 to 3.5999 from NHS consideration, even after it was brought to their attention. The technically correct response to this conundrum was to grandfather in everyone who wanted to be considered with the 3.5-3.6 GPAs and work on changing the policy so it matches practice. It is not ever acceptable to tell a kid and their parents "Oops, our policy doesn't match our practice. We've never done it this way and too bad for you." If the third reading goes through tonight, this should be Day One of using 3.6 as the standard.
I hope to get to the meeting tonight. I'm jealous that the board meetings are rumored to go much faster now that the committee meetings are "of the whole" board.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Proficiency Index calculations for JC McKenna and EHS
As promised, I ran calculations of the Proficiency Index used to determine AYP compliance for JC McKenna and EHS, both for students with disabilities and students without disabilities. I have to put in a disclaimer on the EHS calculations: there are only 21 students with disabilities in Grade 10 so the government does not consider this subgroup separately in determining EHS AYP compliance. According to the government, there are accountability indices in place for small schools, but they don't really give much more information than that.
JC McKenna flat out wins the Evansville Schools award for achieving AYP without invoking any Confidence Intervals or "safe harbor" requirements whatsoever. There are 53 students with disabilities enrolled and they attained a 78.4% Proficiency in Reading (compare to the target of 74%) and 64.2% Proficiency in Math (compare to the target of 58%). Students without disabilities (305 students) scored 97% and 95.6% respectively in Reading and Math this year. Good show to JC McKenna! Keep up the good work Mr. Flaherty and crew!
EHS students without disabilities achieved Proficiency Indices of 92.6% in Reading (vs. 74%) and 89.2% in Math (vs. 58%). AYP is achieved at EHS. To gauge the progress of EHS students with disabilities, I also calculated the Proficiency Indices for this subgroup. If this data were included for AYP, Evansville would be in trouble with scores of 52.3% in Reading and 42.9% in Math in 2009-2010. In a not too distant future, I envision the district enrollment increasing to the point that these data will be included in our AYP designation. Or there may be changes in the law that hold small schools more accountable to this group of students. So I decided to run a "safe harbor" calculation on this data to see if EHS students with disabilities would qualify under those circumstances. Only the Math achievement qualified with a 22.6% decrease in non-proficient students from a year ago. That was reassuring. The Reading achievement for these students, conversely, showed a 9.8% increase in non-proficient students in one year. One has to keep a perspective that these are pretty small sample sizes, but a district wide trend of gradual increases in non-proficient students seems to be developing in Evansville. I'm sure this data is one reason Mr. Everson asked the Board to fund a Reading Strategies Class beginning next year at EHS. Good proactive approach, Mr. Everson. I'm anxious to see the impact this class has on EHS scores in the next few years.
The bottom line is that TRIS isn't alone in their struggles with AYP in our district. Their Students with Disabilities enrollment meets the minimum to require TRIS to include these data in their AYP reports and the High School grade 10 enrollment is not sufficient in this subgroup to require inclusion in AYP reports. As the targets increase to 100% Proficiency Indices over the next 4 years, more and more subgroups will begin to challenge the system. I predict that the next at-risk group in our district will be the students with economic disadvantage. These scores are typically 10% less than those of our students without economic disadvantage. What we have here is a bad news, good news sort of scenario. We have a gap between the achievement of these two groups, but it is smaller than the statewide gap for two reasons: 1) our disadvantaged kids score better than those in the state as a whole and 2) our non-disadvantaged kids score lower than those in the state as a whole. The trick is to increase both groups at the same time, and my next post will address this issue as well as further delve into the possibility of gradual declines in our achievement data over the last 5 years, as measured by WKCE data. Stay tuned for "Eagle Eye View: ECSD 5 year Achievement Index"
JC McKenna flat out wins the Evansville Schools award for achieving AYP without invoking any Confidence Intervals or "safe harbor" requirements whatsoever. There are 53 students with disabilities enrolled and they attained a 78.4% Proficiency in Reading (compare to the target of 74%) and 64.2% Proficiency in Math (compare to the target of 58%). Students without disabilities (305 students) scored 97% and 95.6% respectively in Reading and Math this year. Good show to JC McKenna! Keep up the good work Mr. Flaherty and crew!
EHS students without disabilities achieved Proficiency Indices of 92.6% in Reading (vs. 74%) and 89.2% in Math (vs. 58%). AYP is achieved at EHS. To gauge the progress of EHS students with disabilities, I also calculated the Proficiency Indices for this subgroup. If this data were included for AYP, Evansville would be in trouble with scores of 52.3% in Reading and 42.9% in Math in 2009-2010. In a not too distant future, I envision the district enrollment increasing to the point that these data will be included in our AYP designation. Or there may be changes in the law that hold small schools more accountable to this group of students. So I decided to run a "safe harbor" calculation on this data to see if EHS students with disabilities would qualify under those circumstances. Only the Math achievement qualified with a 22.6% decrease in non-proficient students from a year ago. That was reassuring. The Reading achievement for these students, conversely, showed a 9.8% increase in non-proficient students in one year. One has to keep a perspective that these are pretty small sample sizes, but a district wide trend of gradual increases in non-proficient students seems to be developing in Evansville. I'm sure this data is one reason Mr. Everson asked the Board to fund a Reading Strategies Class beginning next year at EHS. Good proactive approach, Mr. Everson. I'm anxious to see the impact this class has on EHS scores in the next few years.
The bottom line is that TRIS isn't alone in their struggles with AYP in our district. Their Students with Disabilities enrollment meets the minimum to require TRIS to include these data in their AYP reports and the High School grade 10 enrollment is not sufficient in this subgroup to require inclusion in AYP reports. As the targets increase to 100% Proficiency Indices over the next 4 years, more and more subgroups will begin to challenge the system. I predict that the next at-risk group in our district will be the students with economic disadvantage. These scores are typically 10% less than those of our students without economic disadvantage. What we have here is a bad news, good news sort of scenario. We have a gap between the achievement of these two groups, but it is smaller than the statewide gap for two reasons: 1) our disadvantaged kids score better than those in the state as a whole and 2) our non-disadvantaged kids score lower than those in the state as a whole. The trick is to increase both groups at the same time, and my next post will address this issue as well as further delve into the possibility of gradual declines in our achievement data over the last 5 years, as measured by WKCE data. Stay tuned for "Eagle Eye View: ECSD 5 year Achievement Index"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)