Score one against the over-reliance on testing for determining whether or not a school is achieving its goals. Montgomery Elementary school has for the past five years been designated a high achieving school by scoring over 800 points on the state’s API schedule. However, that’s not good enough under the Federal System because their score dropped modestly from last year to this year. As a result they have achieved a status of Program Improvement.
Some will argue that this demonstrates what we already have known for sometime that the federal standard is unachievable because the standards rise up to the unachievable level by 2014. The NCLB benchmarks have been described as a hockey stick because the achievement line rises at a steep angle which ends at a benchmark at 100 percent student proficiency by 2013-14.
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell has called for changes.
“While we can never abandon the goal of proficiency for all students, I continue to support efforts to create a single accountability system for California – in order to reduce confusion and still push schools to help all students improve.”
The Davis Enterprise reports in fact that Montgomery is not alone, 118 California schools has achieved the 800 point status of high achievement and yet have ended up being classified as Program Improvement schools.
For me, we reap what we sow when we try to play this game.
We all want improvement in our schools. There are many schools that need improvement. But we have become overly reliant on numbers to make that determination.
Some will argue that we can simply tweak the existing system to be more responsive to the realities of the world. We certainly can.
Others will argue this is why the federal government ought not be involved in education.
Each of those arguments certainly has some merit. From my perspective I don’t see why education is any less of a federal issue than it is a state issue. We generally educate at the local level but monies come in at the state level and standards are standards, it does not really make much sense to me that we cannot have national standards for education. I don’t see why Louisiana needs to have different education standards than California–at least for some things.
But back to Davis and the issue of Montgomery. The standards under NRLB are ridiculous and it seems likely that every school will be in violation by 2013-14. 100 percent proficiency is unachievable and unattainable. So Montgomery made progress or achieved the designated level for 19 of 21 benchmarks under NCLB’s Adequate Yearly Progress provisions. However, since they came up short on two of the benchmarks, the school is now in Program Improvement Status despite achieving probably in the 80th to 90th percentile.
We have lost sight of the critical problems in this district by focusing on Montgomery rather than the achievement gap. These kinds of programs do not force accountability, they enforce attention to minutae at the expense of more serious and pressing issues.
So let us indeed be realistic for a moment. NCLB amounts to no more than another unfunded mandate on the schools. We have accountability without funding. So it is perfectly okay for California to cut billions from education under NCLB but when it ends up out of compliance, what will the federal government do?
We have a nation and a state that loves putting regulations for compliance on schools, they love forcing the schools and students to take tests, but there is no commitment to giving schools the resources to actually improve standards of education.
Until we commit ourselves to the resources needed to improve our schools, test taking is a waste of time. It is a reminder of the failures of the system without any ability for us to change it. To make matters worse we spend billions on taking tests that could go into the classroom to improve those tests we take.
There are of course those who point to failing schools who will argue that when we spent more money it does not generally equate with school improvements. Money will not fix all problems by itself. However lack of money will cause more problems.
Here’s an analogy, let us suppose you own a home that is on the older side and that you need to spend a certain amount of money each year to maintain it. But no matter how much you spend, you always have more maintenance the next year. The obvious answer is to buy a new home with less maintenance costs, but given the market, that might not happen for a few years. In the meantime, if you spend more money, you will not necessarily avoid maintenance for the next year, however, if you spend less money you will have a home that is deteriorating in condition.
In many ways, many of the schools we deal with are in the same position. What we really need is a huge investment in education to rebuild the entire system, but we lack the ability to do that right now. So we are paying for maintenance which does not prevent new problems from arising. But reducing spending will necessarily lead to a deterioration of what we currently have.
Fortunately, Davis does not have these kinds of problems. We have a fairly good education system that produces fairly high achieving students. Perhaps we could do better, perhaps not. But trying to use the same standards of improvement in Davis as we do in other areas makes very little sense. Just as it equally makes very little sense to me to try to fix schools on the margins when we are failing to properly investment in the entire system.
The bottom line is that Davis is going to have to spend time and money to fix something that isn’t broken in Montgomery and we have now spent three years in DJUSD trying to bandage our fiscal woes caused by the falling statewide economy rather than trying to close the achievement gap. None of this makes a lot of sense, but unless someone steps forward and says enough, we will continue on this path indefinitely. The people who will suffer in this scenario will be the students–as always. Particularly those at risk to begin with.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Yes, maybe it is time for school districts to step forward and say enough is enough. What would be the consequence? No state (CA schools for years have not gotten near enough per pupil, anyway!) and federal monnies? Others sanctions? Is there an “appeal” and review process? The No Child Left Behind policy badly needs an overhaul…this is well-intentioned “central planning” run amok.
Nancy said “this is well-intentioned “central planning” run amok.”
No it wasn’t well intentioned, it was always a right wing plan to break the teacher unions through the destruction of the existing system by creating an opportunity for more charter schools and do smoke and mirrors reform on the cheap through standardized testing. Whether or not you like charter schools is irrelevent to the purpose of setting up the entire system to fail by ramping up targets in the out years.
A school can look pretty good when all you look at are overall numbers. Davis schools, all of which scored over 800 points on the API schedule, look pretty terrific. However, my main criticism of the Davis schools has always been that they pander to the college-bound, while many of the lower-achieving fall through the cracks and have their needs swept under the rug. These scores indicate just such a problem, and the “achievement gap” is widening. While the “best” students continue to reap the rewards in Davis schools, the rest aren’t so fortunate. Students with learning disabilities still have to fight tooth and nail against the district every step of the way to obtain even modest help. ESL children, and those from a lower socio-economic status, often flounder, even though Davis, with its exorbitantly high cost of living, tends to exclude most of these children.
I hate these tests and I hate the fact that teachers are forced to teach to them almost exclusively. However, these scores do point out deficiencies in our “beloved” Davis schools that no one seems to want to address.
Read a sentence from the Davis Enterprise – “A school entering Program Improvement Year One is required to notify parents, conduct several surveys and assessments, and allocate ten percent of federal Title I funds to professional development for teachers.”
No wonder the likes of tax and spend Ted Kennedy signed on to this stupid No Child Left Behind program! It garners more tax money for the schools, but clearly does not direct funding in a useful way. Punishing Marguerite Montgomery teachers as if they were subpar, while inner city school teachers who might need some professional development, is just plain stupid. Leave it to the federal gov’t to screw things up.
Education needs to be a local issue, not a federal one. Let states decide where the federal money should go. There is nothing wrong with federal standards, charter schools, and the like. But don’t strait jacket local gov’ts in implementing what they know to be the more appropriate way. Obviously the feds don’t get it, if this is the best they can do.
That said, I do not necessarily think the schools need more money. I will get a lot of flak on this blog for this statement, but there is a lot of waste that goes on. Look at the whole Tahir Ahad/Total School Solutions scandal. Did you read in the Davis Enterprise that somehow UCD will allow DHS to use Toomey Field while it is renovating the stadium? Couldn’t a deal have been worked out to use Toomey Field on a regular basis rather than expend precious tax dollars on renovations? Do we really need to expend $70,000 a year on a salad bar for kids in the name of good nutrition, while we feed these kids corn dogs, nacho cheese chips and greasy pizza? Something is wrong with this picture.
I’m all for more money in education, if it went for increasing teacher salaries so they are better qualified, or for improving the awful textbooks that kids are having to use. But I am not for expending tax dollars for frills, while the basics go unattended. Da Vinci is a lovely idea, but really, do we need it? Is it a basic? Is a Stage Technician teacher NECESSARY?
I think everyone also needs to think about the decline in our schools in terms of dollars in another way. Why is it that even though more money is being expended per pupil than in my day (I am 60 years old), the quality of education has gone downhill? I would argue we have gotten away from teaching the 3 R’s, and are too concentrated on other peripheral issues that should not really be within the scope of what public schools teach. Public schools cannot be all things to all people.
[i]Score one against the over-reliance on testing for determining whether or not a school is achieving its goals.[/i]
This is a half-correct reading of what has gone wrong with No Child Left Behind.
There is a great deal right, and in principle nothing wrong whatsoever, with uniform tests for students. There is nothing wrong either with using them to decide whether a school is achieving its goals, if the results are interpreted wisely. Without the STAR/CAHSEE tests, you wouldn’t even know that there is an achievement gap. You see the achievement gap as an important problem, but the achievement gap is based entirely on test data; if 100% reliance isn’t over-reliance, then what is?
No, what has gone wrong with No Child Left Behind is that it is really No School Left Standing. By design, it ratchets up expectations until every school fails. Its pernicious properties have been described as good intentions gone bad, but that is only half true. It is true that many people initially supported NCLB with good intentions in mind. But whoever actually designed NCLB was in a different situation. The architects of NCLB willfully ignored the warnings, and they were egged on by lobbyists and strategists with less noble motives.
It’s pretty obvious that you’re setting up every school to fail if you strictly demand that no child is left behind. There will always be some children who just don’t like school, or just don’t like to read, or just don’t like algebra. By the standards of NCLB, they want to be left behind, and schools would have to become tyrannies in order not to “fail”. Of course, schools should encourage all children to learn, but demanding 100% success is ultimately a threat to childhood liberty.
What could be the benefit of declaring every public school a failure? There are two related reasons. First, NCLB was written by an administration that largely believed that government doesn’t work. It’s then ideologically gratifying to send expectations to the sky and declare everyone a failure. Having all failed, schools will inevitably complain and make excuses. It is then very easy to say that the government is falling down on the job again. It is even easier if you rear-load the impossible expectations so that the next administration is left holding the bag.
Second, declarations of failure create openings for privatized education by undermining the stability of public schools. When a public school has finally failed under NCLB, it can reorganize as a privately run school. That school might fail too, eventually, but NCLB restarts the clock. So for a decade or so the contractors can make money. The contractors also don’t care if their charter schools fail, because they can just keep setting up new charter schools. Bush and some states have also wanted to use vouchers as a way out of NCLB. The vouchers would be used at schools that are exempt from the NCLB treadmill. Home schooling is also exempt.
To summarize, testing and expectations from testing are not the problem. NCLB is the problem. As some experts knew all along, it was a Trojan attack that would eventually make every public school fail.
“Why is it that even though more money is being expended per pupil than in my day (I am 60 years old), the quality of education has gone downhill?”
How do you know that the quality of education has gone downhill? Did schools in your and surrounding areas serve every kid of school age? Even the Mexican migrant workers? What was the high school dropout rate? Was it even measured? Was that all swept under the rug to keep up appearances? Did students with disabilities (both physical and mental) attend your schools and were served by your district? How was bullying handled in those schools? Was it ignored? Was there any social repression in your day? Was it acceptable to disparage other students as “fags” in your day? or use any other racial epithet to marginalize a group that didn’t quite look or act like yours?
NCLB has problems, but since state standards and NCLB were implemented, student success has significantly improved, as measured by standardized tests. If that is invalid for measuring educational improvements, then what alternatives should we use to hold schools accountable?
Bush signed NCLB declaring, “No child left behind, no excuses.” All that lofty talk actually costs something. If you inadequately fund schools, then the rule that will tend to apply is “the greatest good for the greatest number of people.” If it costs an extra ten to twenty thousand dollars to educate a single kid with disabilities of some kind, then it looks like waste and inefficiency to many others.
Geat dialog. I especially appreciate Mr. Kuperberg and “Different Take.” I too am over 60 and a teacher. The problem isn’t that schools are teaching less; my kids in Davis got more math, science, and literature and at a higher level than I did in the “good old days.” The problem is the huge disparity between schools in affluent communities like Davis and Marin County and poorer areas. Also, part of the problem is, as Mr. Kuperberg points out, is that schools are rated on improvement from the previous year; what happens when a school achieves perfect sores? Does it then become a failure because it can’t improve? Finally, as Mr. Kuperberg points out, there is nothing wrong with objective tests; we use them for students to enter college, graduate school, government service, etc. But there is a problem in how they are given in California schools; a lot of kids just mark the multiple choice bubbles randomly because they don’t want to take the test, and it “doesn’t count” for anything to them personally. If enough kids do this, it of course skews the results.
Actually, I did not make the point out that NCLB always demands improvement over the previous year, but I could have.
David acknowledges that it’s a sneak attack on schools to eventually demand a 100% batting average. But of course there is another principle here that NCLB violates, and that actually an obsession over achievement gaps also violates. Namely, a school should not automatically be forced to top itself. In general, it’s a way to pervert a success story and call it a failure.
By the same principle, people shouldn’t be forced to top themselves. Michael Phelps won 8 gold medals in the 2008 Olympics. That does not make him a failure if he only wins 4 gold medals in the 2012 Olympics, or even if he doesn’t win any medals at all.
In the case of the achievement gap, the fact is that every ethnic group in Davis is above the state average. There is an achievement gap in Davis between Asians and whites, and between whites and Hispanics and blacks. What the Asians have done is a towering achievement. It does not by itself mean that the district falls short with everyone else.
Beyond that, achievements and achievement gaps in Davis both have a lot to do with demographics, and not just the breakdown into ethnic groups. For instance, Davis is an unusual district in which blacks have a higher average API than Hispanics. Probably a higher fraction of the blacks are university-connected professionals. The easiest way for DJUSD to “improve” its achievement gap would be to redraw the district to exclude low-income Hispanics. There has been a lot of this kind of cheating associated with NCLB, and its roots in Texas when Bush was governor: “Improve” by changing which students are counted. Bush’s first Education Secretary, Rod Paige, was superintendent in Houston. The Houston school district “improved” its dropout rate by reclassifying dropouts as district transfers.
So the point is that yes, the achievement gap in general is a perfectly valid social concern. But seizing on the achievement gap within Davis as the big problem is solipsistic, and could turn into an incentive for anti-solutions.
“Do we really need to expend $70,000 a year on a salad bar for kids in the name of good nutrition, while we feed these kids corn dogs, nacho cheese chips and greasy pizza?”
So, get rid of the fresh salads and feed them corn dogs and greasy pizza instead because it saves money and education is more important than nutrition? Is that really the point you’re trying to make? I was sort of with you up to that point.
I understand that schools can’t do everything, but a halfway decent, nutritious lunch is not unreasonable. I don’t know where you’re coming from, but I place nutrition above education in this instance.
“No wonder the likes of tax and spend Ted Kennedy signed on to this stupid No Child Left Behind program!”
I think there were also conservative Republicans who signed on to the stupid program, also.
“for improving the awful textbooks that kids are having to use.”
Which ones do you refer to? The ones that fail to discuss intelligent design in biology?
All of the ones that my kids have used looked fine by me.
“There is nothing wrong with federal standards, *charter schools*, and the like.”
“Da Vinci is a lovely idea, but really, do we need it?”
So you’re all for charter schools unless it’s somehow a frill? How is Da Vinci a waste of money? How is it a frill? unnecessary?
I understand that Da Vinci offers a different style of teaching that works very well for some kids who don’t do as well under a conventional system.
Different Take: “Why is it that even though more money is being expended per pupil than in my day (I am 60 years old), the quality of education has gone downhill?”
Anon: “How do you know that the quality of education has gone downhill?”
Because in my day the colleges were not having to give remedial English and Math classes to incoming freshman as a result of the public schools not doing their jobs!
Anon: “Do we really need to expend $70,000 a year on a salad bar for kids in the name of good nutrition, while we feed these kids corn dogs, nacho cheese chips and greasy pizza?”
Huh?: “So, get rid of the fresh salads and feed them corn dogs and greasy pizza instead because it saves money and education is more important than nutrition? Is that really the point you’re trying to make? I was sort of with you up to that point.”
No, do away with the salad bar concept, and just feed the kids nutritious lunches period. In other words, what we are doing now is feeding the kids crap, like nachoes, corn dogs, and greasy pizza. We then funnel them to a fancy salad bar (which costs $70,000 a year to maintain), to eat fresh watermelon. How about scrapping the salad bar – and the junk food like nachoes, corn dogs and greasy pizza – and substitute spaghetti and meatballs, with real hamburger, small side salad, and garlic bread with fruit for dessert? That is what we were served in my day, and when I was a teacher. To feed kids fresh produce while still feeding them junk food is counterproductive and a waste of money.
Our kids are getting fed crap, and a bandaid is put on the whole thing in the name of a “crunch lunch program” to 1) support a local Davis author who teaches cafeteria workers how to cook with fresh produce; and 2) supports local farmers. What difference does it make if the child gets their produce locally or from anywhere else? Good nutrution is good nutrition, from whatever source, especially in this global economy. If local produce is cheaper, fine – if not, go elsewhere for it.
anon: “for improving the awful textbooks that kids are having to use.”
anonymo: “Which ones do you refer to? The ones that fail to discuss intelligent design in biology? All of the ones that my kids have used looked fine by me.”
The new text books are confusing (especially the math books), watered down/revisionist history to be politically correct, and wordy. They are not straightforward and as concise as they should be.
anonymo: “So you’re all for charter schools unless it’s somehow a frill? How is Da Vinci a waste of money? How is it a frill? unnecessary? I understand that Da Vinci offers a different style of teaching that works very well for some kids who don’t do as well under a conventional system.”
I have no problem with charter schools, including Da Vinci. It offers kids an alternative, which is fine. But Da Vinci only just became a charter school. Prior to that it was its own stand alone school for the elites in Davis. This nonsense about Da Vinci being for kids that don’t work well in a conventional system is poppycock. Da Vinci kids scored higher than DHS students in the standardized tests, which is a pretty good indicator it is for the more intelligent kids. The more intelligent kids will do well no matter where they are placed. The learning disabled will not. Yet we provide an entire school for these super bright kids who really don’t need it, while giving short shrift to the learning disabled. That is wasting money IMHO.
Actually, Da Vinci does work well for kids who do better in a different learning environment. I want my son to go there, and I don’t expect he would do well in the conventional Middle Schools or High School. He isn’t a high achiever and learns more in a group environment. He could be a kid who gets lost in the traditional Davis system. I am grateful that we have options for the kids who don’t necessarily fit into the Gate mold that Davis holds so dear.
“But Da Vinci only just became a charter school. Prior to that it was its own stand alone school for the elites in Davis. This nonsense about Da Vinci being for kids that don’t work well in a conventional system is poppycock. Da Vinci kids scored higher than DHS students in the standardized tests, which is a pretty good indicator it is for the more intelligent kids.”
So if kids score higher on standardized tests at Da Vinci, then they would have scored higher at DHS?
I agree with Dee, above, some students perform better in an environment where group activities are emphasized. I’m surprised this perspective is “poppycock.” Surely you’re not arguing for a one-size-fits-all approach?
“The new text books are confusing (especially the math books)”
Which math books?
“watered down/revisionist history to be politically correct, and wordy.”
What’s an example of that? How is it revisionist, watered down and wordy?
What I’ve read so far looks about right.
“Our kids are getting fed crap, and a bandaid is put on the whole thing in the name of a “crunch lunch program” to 1) support a local Davis author who teaches cafeteria workers how to cook with fresh produce; and 2) supports local farmers. What difference does it make if the child gets their produce locally or from anywhere else? Good nutrution is good nutrition, from whatever source, especially in this global economy. If local produce is cheaper, fine – if not, go elsewhere for it.”
Crap is cheap and typically doesn’t have an expiration date. That’s how we got to this point. You would be surprised how many folks think cooking these days means pulling it out of the fridge/freezer and popping it in the microwave. Moms don’t stay at home as much as they did in the 50’s and 60’s. They’re working to help their families.
Anon: “How do you know that the quality of education has gone downhill?”
“Because in my day the colleges were not having to give remedial English and Math classes to incoming freshman as a result of the public schools not doing their jobs!”
I looked through UC Davis’ catalog and couldn’t find any course that looked like remedial English.
What was considered remedial math in your day? UCD does have a section each of elementary algebra and trigonometry that they seem to consider remedial because the courses come with a footnote that there is no college credit for either course. Unless I am missing some other courses, I am not convinced that this indicates that the quality of education has gone downhill, at least at UC Davis.
Community colleges do offer remedial math and English, but they have to accept everyone, even high school dropouts. Without community colleges, adults with academic deficiencies would never make it to a four-year college.
“No wonder the likes of tax and spend Ted Kennedy signed on to this stupid No Child Left Behind program!”
NCLB was very much a bipartisan bill, introduced by both Republicans and Democrats, passed with healthy majorities, and signed by Bush.
Senate vote:
[url]http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00192[/url]
House vote:
[url]http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll145.xml[/url]
“Is a Stage Technician teacher NECESSARY?”
Stagecraft is a vocational program funded by the county ROP (regional occupational program). Operating the usual equipment in a theater cannot be done by just anyone walking in off the street. There are such jobs for people professionally.
[url]http://www.ycoe.org/depts/ssis/#YROP[/url]
[i]UCD does have a section each of elementary algebra and trigonometry that they seem to consider remedial because the courses come with a footnote that there is no college credit for either course.[/i]
Yes, and each one is only offered in the fall quarter, with an enrollment cap of 25 and 35 students. This is a drop in the bucket; the big enrollment begins with precalculus, and even that is a fraction of the size of the calculus sequence.
I just checked the scanned catalog from 40 years ago, 1969-1970. Back then, the UC Davis math department indeed had one section each of high school algebra and high shcool geometry. Except that at the time, the algebra course was 4 units and the geometry course was 2 units, instead of no units for either one. I do not know how many sections they offered.
This “in my day” stuff is a load of nonsense.
[i]NCLB was very much a bipartisan bill, introduced by both Republicans and Democrats, passed with healthy majorities, and signed by Bush.[/i]
More importantly, it was crafted by Bush. Although it is true that the bare handful of no votes was mostly Republicans, the Democrats didn’t write this legislation.
wdf: “I looked through UC Davis’ catalog and couldn’t find any course that looked like remedial English.”
When I entered UC Davis in 1974, it was called Subject A. Now it is apparently English 57.
Anon: “Because in my day the colleges were not having to give remedial English and Math classes to incoming freshman as a result of the public schools not doing their jobs!”
In my day, a majority of incoming freshmen had to take Subject A. So apparently things had deteriorated pretty badly in the decade between your college days and mine.
[i]So apparently things had deteriorated pretty badly in the decade between your college days and mine.[/i]
Right after he graduated, the standards collapsed.
Don S.:”Now it is apparently English 57.”
There is no English 57 I could find. UCD has a separate “University Writing Program” section (UWP) that has courses that seem to focus on writing. Again nothing that seems to be remedial. For remedial, I would assume that the course would be available but not for college credit. Maybe there’s something I’m missing.
If UCD and the rest of the UC system have far more applicants than they can easily accept or place, I would presume that UC can be demanding of what it looks for in students.
Why should UCD waste time admitting someone who requires remedial math and English when there may well be dozens of other students who come more highly recommended?
“Right after he graduated, the standards collapsed.”
They broke the mold.
The point is, here at UC Davis, we used to really teach people. Now all we do is murder squirrels.
I was impressed with what I read in the Bee (Sunday Forum Section) about U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s view of the state of CA public school education and the Race To the Top program where schools can compete for federal funds by demonstrating improvement. Here are some excerpts:
[quote]The Department of Education historically, since its inception, has been a compliance-driven bureaucracy. We’re trying to get out of the compliance business and get into the business of investing in what works.[/quote]First see if you can get that working, then talk to me about healthcare.
[quote]Great teaching, great principals matter. Talent matters tremendously in education. Somehow we’re afraid to talk about excellence in education. I’m not sure why.[/quote]Sure, but don’t tell teachers how to grade students, and don’t even think about grading them. They won’t stand for it.
[quote]Today, America has about 5,000 schools that continue to underperform year after year. Two thousand high schools produce half of the dropouts in the country. Their kids are years behind grade. And this is true not just for one or two years, for five years or 10 years but for 20 or 30 years. Decades.[/quote]Children falling significantly behind due to poor school performance or poor teacher performance should result in jail time for the responsible principle and teachers due to the damage inflicted on the children. Alternatively, they can bypass jail time by supporting being replaced by a charter school or by allowing vouchers in their district.
[quote]In California’s evaluation system, like most places, there’s no correlation between student performance and teacher evaluation. I think that’s a problem. I think how students do should be a part of teacher evaluation. The other extreme is having 100 percent of evaluation based on test scores. I think that’s equally bad. I’m trying to argue for a middle ground.
Any good evaluation of anyone, not just of teachers, looks at multiple indicators: Peer evaluations. Principal observation. The leadership you take. And also student work, student achievement. There’s always a balance in this.
But to say that student performance shouldn’t factor at all in how teachers are evaluated doesn’t make any sense to me.[/quote]Duh… why is this a revelation? In corporate American this type of review is called a “balanced scorecard” or “360 degree assessment” and have been around for decades. Let’s see if you can get this past the teachers’ unions without getting ripped to shreds.
[quote]The current system is absolutely unfair to teachers. California has 300,000 teachers. The top 10 percent, 30,000 teachers, are amongst the best in the world. The bottom 10 percent, the bottom 30,000 teachers, probably shouldn’t be teaching. And no one in the state can tell you who’s where.
Currently, the best teachers don’t get recognized. They don’t get rewarded. We don’t learn from them by sharing their best practices. The teachers in the middle don’t get the support and professional development they need to continue to grow. And those teachers at the bottom, some of whom shouldn’t be teaching, nothing happens there, either.[/quote]Uh, right, but change the numbers: Bottom 20 percent are in the wrong job and should go. The next 20 should be put on warning to ramp up their performance since they will be the new bottom 20. Middle 40 get to keep their job. The top 20 get to share in a bonus pool with the top 10% making six figures. Does this sound harsh? Later just ask the star performing teachers what they think of the change…
Apparently, Sac City College now handles this chore for UCD:
[url]http://registrar.ucdavis.edu/UCDWebCatalog00_02/WebCatFrt/gc_univreq.htm[/url]
“If you have not satisfied the requirement in one of the ways described above, you must enroll in English 57 during your first quarter of residence at the university, or as soon thereafter as space is available in the course. English 57, offered by Sacramento City College on the Davis campus, counts as 4.5 units on your study list and toward minimum progress….”
That comment was to wdf in reference to Subject A English requirement.
http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/index.cfm?i=60790
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFQ6j-BPwTs&feature=player_embedded
Anonymo: “So if kids score higher on standardized tests at Da Vinci, then they would have scored higher at DHS?
I agree with Dee, above, some students perform better in an environment where group activities are emphasized. I’m surprised this perspective is “poppycock.” Surely you’re not arguing for a one-size-fits-all approach?”
No, I am arguing that we prioritize. Da Vinci is being funded at the expense of learning disabled students.
Dee: “I am grateful that we have options for the kids who don’t necessarily fit into the Gate mold that Davis holds so dear.”
Gate and Da Vinci are not the be all and end all of our educational system. What about learning disabled students, who really need assistance and are being left in the dust? Are you telling me your son is learning disabled? Or are you telling me he is a bright kid who would do even better if he went to Da Vinci? Who should we be more concerned about, your son getting higher grades than his already high grades so he can get into Standford, or the learning disabled student who may not even make it to college or may not be able to get a job bc this student does not have the basic skills? Which is more important? Your answer will be very telling…
anonymo: “Crap is cheap and typically doesn’t have an expiration date.”
So that is an excuse for the schools to serve garbage to our kids, then spend another $70,000 of our tax dollars to put a bandaid on the problem and feed them a little fresh produce, to make us think our kids are getting good nutrition when they are not?
wdf: “I looked through UC Davis’ catalog and couldn’t find any course that looked like remedial English.”
This issue appears regularly in the Davis Enterprise, in which UCD complains that incoming freshman have to be given remedial English courses bc the public school system is not teaching the basics. Are you saying the Davis Enterprise is falsely reporting? Or is it you just don’t want to believe the public school system is inadequate? Others have pointed to a course called English 57.
wdf: “NCLB was very much a bipartisan bill, introduced by both Republicans and Democrats, passed with healthy majorities, and signed by Bush.”
I am well aware of that, but wanted to point out Democrats had a hand in the program as well as Republicans. A pox on both houses for this one!
wdf: “Stagecraft is a vocational program funded by the county ROP (regional occupational program).”
So what are you saying here, that if it is a vo tech program, it is sacrosanct? With that kind of argument, schools should be a virtual vo tech school teaching every occupation under the sun. Where do you draw the line? How many kids do you think are going to actually wind up as stage techs? Is this really fiscally wise? Can’t this same student go to a vo tech school to get training, that would actually be more in depth, including placement services?
This is what I call “mission creep” – School administrators say “Wouldn’t it be fun for kids to learn stage craft, especially kids that aren’t crazy about school? Ooooh, we have to hire a teacher for that. Oh and we have to fund a classroom. Oh and we have to have equipment for the students to use, and a special auditorium for them to actually hold productions…” Suddenly a small idea morphs into a gigantic costly project that sucks money into its vortex like nobody’s business. And eventually we find ourselves paying huge taxes to fund things now set in concrete that are far beyond the the 3 R’s. In fact, it has gotten so byzantine, that we don’t do the 3 R’s well anymore.
Greg Kuperberg: “This “in my day” stuff is a load of nonsense.”
I’ll stack up the qualifications of those in my day against the qualifications of today’s kids! Today’s public school students don’t even know what a basic paragraph is. I had my three children go through Davis schools, and all three had to be supplemented at home bc they did not get basics in school. All three graduated from UCD with good educations. It seems as if you have to get a basic education in college, bc you aren’t going to get it in the CA public school system. Perhaps the difference is I went to school in the MD/Washington D.C. area.
If all of you are admitting that remedial English courses exist (English 57/Subject A), even in your day, then obviously the CA public school system is lacking. No child accepted to college should have to take a remedial English course. They should already know English. Why are you willing to accept so little? We should demand better!
Jeff Boone: “Children falling significantly behind due to poor school performance or poor teacher performance should result in jail time for the responsible principle and teachers due to the damage inflicted on the children. Alternatively, they can bypass jail time by supporting being replaced by a charter school or by allowing vouchers in their district.”
Amen!
“Gate and Da Vinci are not the be all and end all of our educational system. What about learning disabled students, who really need assistance and are being left in the dust? Are you telling me your son is learning disabled? Or are you telling me he is a bright kid who would do even better if he went to Da Vinci? Who should we be more concerned about, your son getting higher grades than his already high grades so he can get into Standford, or the learning disabled student who may not even make it to college or may not be able to get a job bc this student does not have the basic skills? Which is more important? Your answer will be very telling…
“
Your comments border on offensive, with generalizations and false assumptions.
I have a son with a learning disability who went to Da Vinci. I don’t think he would have succeeded in regular classes at DHS. He did well with group projects, though. No, he didn’t go to Stanford. We are grateful he graduated. He is going to community college and we hope he will have a college degree soon.
All I can say is that it worked for my kid and maybe a couple of others I know who have learning disabilities. I appreciated that he felt some semblance of normality at Da Vinci. I don’t fully know what alternatives he would have had at Davis High, but I know that things weren’t quite working well in JH.
Anon: “No, I am arguing that we prioritize. Da Vinci is being funded at the expense of learning disabled students.
Dee: “I am grateful that we have options for the kids who don’t necessarily fit into the Gate mold that Davis holds so dear.”
Gate and Da Vinci are not the be all and end all of our educational system. What about learning disabled students, who really need assistance and are being left in the dust? Are you telling me your son is learning disabled? Or are you telling me he is a bright kid who would do even better if he went to Da Vinci? Who should we be more concerned about, your son getting higher grades than his already high grades so he can get into Standford, or the learning disabled student who may not even make it to college or may not be able to get a job bc this student does not have the basic skills? Which is more important? Your answer will be very telling…”
—–
I had a child who was simultaneously in GATE and Special Ed. They are not mutually exclusive. So my answer would be that gifted students and those requiring special education are equally important. What is your answer?
And are you under the impression that special education is underfunded in the school district? Special Ed funding is protected. It is not discretionary.
“So what are you saying here, that if it is a vo tech program, it is sacrosanct? With that kind of argument, schools should be a virtual vo tech school teaching every occupation under the sun. Where do you draw the line? How many kids do you think are going to actually wind up as stage techs? Is this really fiscally wise? Can’t this same student go to a vo tech school to get training, that would actually be more in depth, including placement services?”
I say nothing of the sort (that “voc/tech programs are sacrosanct”). I just point out where the money comes from and what it’s for. If you have a problem with it, then you should contact the Yolo County Office of Education. That’s where the money and the program originate.
But since you raise the issue of being fiscally wise in this economy, voc/tech programs lead more immediately to jobs than does a college prep sequence. Isn’t that what we need in this economy right now? People trained to step into whatever jobs happen to be out there? Then they can start contributing money and taxes back into the system?
“I don’t fully know what alternatives he would have had at Davis High, but I know that things weren’t quite working well in JH.”
And maybe, just maybe, DHS would have worked for him just fine. I much prefer Da Vinci as a charter school alternative, that is self-sustaining on its own, and not subject to the whims of budget cuts of DJUSD. Prior to that, Da Vinci represented a drain of money from the regular curriculum, in which learning disabled students were given short shrift – my son being one of them.
“So my answer would be that gifted students and those requiring special education are equally important. What is your answer?”
Learning disabled students need more help than the gifted. The gifted will succeed no matter what. I have more concern about the learning disabled, which are shuffled off into Transition Academy at DHS, and not given the necessary help they need. Transition Academy is a warehouse for “troubled students” DHS doesn’t want to have to deal with. If you want schools for the gifted, set up charter schools. Let DHS do its primary mission well – teach the 3 R’s to all students.
“And are you under the impression that special education is underfunded in the school district? Special Ed funding is protected. It is not discretionary.”
Special Ed is only available if the student meets specific pre-set criteria. My son was dyslexic, and did not qualify for any help. So he struggled mightily through public school. Only after he got to Sac City, then to UCD, did he get the help he so desperately needed. He flunked Sac City his first year, then got into their learning disability program. What a world of difference that made. DHS basically did nothing to help my son – NOTHING.
“But since you raise the issue of being fiscally wise in this economy, voc/tech programs lead more immediately to jobs than does a college prep sequence. Isn’t that what we need in this economy right now?”
And how many students are hired as stage technicians, relative to the money we pour into that program, including teaching staff, equipment, auditorium to hold productions and the like?
“And maybe, just maybe, DHS would have worked for him just fine.”
I doubt it.
“But since you raise the issue of being fiscally wise in this economy, voc/tech programs lead more immediately to jobs than does a college prep sequence. Isn’t that what we need in this economy right now?”
“And how many students are hired as stage technicians, relative to the money we pour into that program, including teaching staff, equipment, auditorium to hold productions and the like?”
I have no idea how many students. Do you?
It’s good that high schools offer something other than just college prep track to students.
“And how many students are hired as stage technicians, relative to the money we pour into that program, including teaching staff, equipment, auditorium to hold productions and the like?”
WDT: “I have no idea how many students. Do you?”
That is the whole point. We don’t really assess how fiscally effective such programs are, and more than likely are putting out way too much money for the return we are getting on our investment. Someone needs to take a good hard objective look at this sort of thing…
“That is the whole point. We don’t really assess how fiscally effective such programs are, and more than likely are putting out way too much money for the return we are getting on our investment. Someone needs to take a good hard objective look at this sort of thing…”
What do you define as an appropriate return on investment?
If a HS student participates in school music but then doesn’t become a professional musician, do you consider that a waste?
Further comment on ROP classes:
The County Office of Education funds those classes, as I understand it, with the intent to introduce and perhaps begin to train students in vocational skills for certain trades and professions.
These classes also help fulfill some requirements for graduation. Without the ROP funds that come to the district, then the district would have to provide classes out of its own funds to meet student graduation requirements. As I see it, here, the district is using available resources to provide some additional variety to their course offerings.
Sac bee article Friday morning about Natomas USD getting hammered by budget cuts. Some of the comments to the article look like they could have been written here about DJUSD.
[url]http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/2208157.html[/url]
wdf – we’ll have to agree to disagree. Sorry…
More to the original point, a recent article on NCLB and Congress:
[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090924/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_obama_no_child[/url]
Folsom-Cordova USD restored some positions after negotiating with union:
[url]http://folsomtelegraph.com/detail/130827.html?content_source=&category_id=&search_filter=&user_id=&event_mode=&event_ts_from=&event_ts_to=&list_type=&order_by=&order_sort=&content_class=1&sub_type=&town_id=[/url]
Also from Folsom-Cordova USD:
[url]http://www.sacbee.com/education/story/2236338.html[/url]
A number of editorial pieces in the Sac Bee advocating consolidating elementary and high school districts to save money. Here’s one of them:
[url]http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/2233235.html[/url]