As my sources indicated last week, Norm Durflinger was approved as interim Superintendent starting December 1, when current Superintendent Ken Hinton retires. Additionally, Durflinger was hired as a part-time Deputy Superintendent between October 19 and December 1. This addition prompted a “no” vote from Board of Education member Laura Petelle.
I agree. Hinton is still supposed to be on the job until December, and if he’s going to take his remaining vacation or sick time between now and then, we also have an Associate Superintendent (Hershel Hannah) on the payroll. Why the need to hire Durflinger as a Deputy Superintendent during this time? How many Superintendents does one district need?
Frustrated said:
“Jon, I used to be associated, in a fashion, with disciplinary matters at the District”
Dare I ask how? That sounds a little ominous đ Like… my company sold those wooden paddles with the holes in them to the District 25 years ago.
Yes, Jon, I could tell you many stories about how Manual teachers are not supported–but they aren’t my stories to tell. Except the one about the industrial arts teacher who seems to be telling his story all over town. I heard it from one source, a board member told me the same story, and Terry Knapp heard the story at his barber shop this week. He was a 40-year retiree from Cat who decided to answer Manual’s need for a shop teacher–they aren’t easy to come by these days. He had a class of 25, many of whom had behavior problems; Kherat kept adding students until he had 34 (not the 12 average you discuss so often). Kherat told him (so I’m told) that if he would stand at the door as all 34 came into the room, looked them straight in the eye, gave them a firm handshake and said “Good Morning,” the kids would respond to him. On about the 8th day of behavior problems ignored by the administration, one kid called him an FM, among other things. He turned in his keys and left. No, good teachers cannot overcome most of these issues–I get it–you have absolutely no concept of what kinds of problems we are talking about. You seem to have the mistaken idea that I’m saying that things were better at Manual when I was there, etc. I have never said that. My problem with Sharon Kherat is that she is pretending or trying to get others to believe that things are better than they were before she arrived. My point is that nothing has changed–so the board’s desire to believe that all the money being spent to turn Manual around is a fantasy. Nothing has changed–may have gotten worse– because there are so few tenured teachers to support the non-tenured teachers. This is not a teacher problem. Jon, kids probably aren’t innately worse than they were 20 years ago, but 20 years of permissiveness has given them the upperhand–and it is in the nature of kids to take advantage of that license. However, I do believe that the number of kids in classrooms with criminal records of one kind or another has increased. A Pekin teacher told me that 125 kids at Pekin High are on probation–and the terms of their probation is go to school or go to prison. Do you believe the situation is better in 150? I had students in my classrooom who were supposed to go to prison with their “next” offense. I couldn’t begin to count the number of “next” chances they were given–adminstrators didn’t want to be to blame for sending a kid to prison. Perhaps you don’t understand how much the gang and drug culture has infiltrated our schools. About Sharon Kherat–I cannot account for the change in a person for whom I have had such high regard for probably well over 15 years–before she even took a position in 150. I just was talking to a friend and said that I thought I would never see the day when I would hear Sharon Kherat blaming teachers to the extent that she did tonight. For one thing, Sharon is in over her head. Her situation at Whittier was so totally different–she was unprepared for the problems at the high school level. If a significant number of Woodruff students are sent to Manual next year, no one will even need a match to light the fire. By the way, Jon, I think Jim gets it–we agree on the problem. We haven’t completely come to agreement on the solution–but getting closer, but I think we both see the need for an alternative school. Too bad that our agreement doesn’t mean much in the scheme of things.
Thanks, Sharon. But here’s what I really don’t get. When you say “good teachers cannot overcome most of these issues” of which you speak, why do you seemingly think administrators like Kherat can?
Again, I understand and applaud your call for an alternative school, but by saying “none of the âway too many,â overpaid administrators support them in any way.” and then not being willing to provide any examples other than one heard at a barber shop (or an explanation of what should have been done to address that particular problem)- it just seems to me that the focus is taken off your true goal and proposed solution.
Jon, I don’t care any more whether you get it or not. I hope someday the board and administration get it. One minute you’re trying to get me to hate another human being; now you’re asking me to break confidences. I guess I will have to say, “Get thee behind me, Satan.” Did I say I heard anything from a barber shop–did the words “from a board member” ring any bells?
Sorry, Sharon – I did not realize these stories were in confidence and I accidentally referred to the “barber shop” piece from Terry Knapp rather than the board member you heard it from. I didn’t mean to offend.
Jon â yes, I believe the student population is much worse now than 20 years ago. Twenty years ago, District 150 was the premier educator in the area and thus the population it was charged with educating was much different in ability and conduct. The exodus of middle class and working class families from the District has left it broken.
I am surprised no one has blogged in to remark about the departure of Richwoods High School Girls Basketball Coach, John Gross, who lead the Lady Knights to a 2009 IHSA Championship win.
He might have been responsible for the only good press the District received last school year. Interesting that his services were no longer required.
Did he not have a problem at a game during the summer ?
From PJS August 2009;By BILL LIESSE (bliesse@pjstar.com)
Journal Star
Posted Aug 21, 2009 @ 08:01 PM
——————————————————————————–
PEORIA â Richwoods girls basketball coach John Gross faces a Sept. 9 court date on battery charges for an incident this summer in which he shoved official Kevin Armstrong.
Gross was arrested Aug. 7 and charged with the misdemeanor. He paid a $1,000 bond and was released from Peoria County Jail, according to a spokesman in Peoria County Sheriff Mike McCoyâs office.
Armstrong requested a police report be filed on the night of the incident, July 15 at Peoria Academy. He had worked a Peoria Girls Sports League game between Richwoods and Central high schools, though the teams were not officially representing those schools.
Armstrong, a former sprint standout for Manual and one-time track and field coach at his alma mater, told Peoria Police that night that he did not wish to press charges.
He told the Journal Star he simply wanted Gross to apologize. When the veteran coach, who won a Class 3A state title with the Knights in March, did not do so, Armstrong went to Peoria County Stateâs Attorney Kevin Lyonsâ office on July 29.
âIf I wouldnât have done anything, it would be open season on officials,â Armstrong said. âMy stance is, keep your hands off officials. Itâs not a free-for-all because itâs summer basketball.â
Armstrong said Gross did call to apologize after the refereeâs meeting with Assistant Stateâs Attorney Dave Kenny. But he said he didnât feel Gross was truly contrite, so he decided to press ahead with the charges.
Attempts to reach Gross were unsuccessful Friday.
Armstrong said in the police report that Gross pushed him in the back, causing him to fall forward for three to four steps, though not fall to the ground.
A witness from the Richwoods bench said Armstrong asked Gross âwhat are they doing?â about the Central players and the coach was merely demonstrating the playersâ contact.
âJohn was wrong to touch the official, yes,â the witness said. âBut he didnât push him in the back with Kevin not looking.â
Armstrong assessed Gross with a technical foul after the incident and ejected him from the gymnasium.
The police report says âGross left without further incident but said, âYou will not work in this place again.â â
Richwoods principal Steve Ptacek said he could not comment on any discipline Gross might face at the school, in part because he is still investigating the extent to which Gross is representing Richwoods in the PGSL game.
âNo formal discipline action has been taken, as the incident is under investigation by the district,â District 150 public relations director Stacey Shangraw said. Shangraw also cited uncertainty about whether Gross was representing the district in this summer-league setting.
Gross is a convicted felon for a May 1996 incident in which he knocked scalding water on his wife at their Bartonville home. Gross was head coach of Limestone girls at the time.
Gross and his wife divorced the next year. He served a 30-day sentence for aggravated battery in the summer of 1997 at Peoria County Jail.
Bill Liesse can be reached at 686-3213 or bliesse@pjstar.com
and you ask why?
Jon – We are referring to teachers being assaulted in the classroom and called vulgar names, that are sent to the Principals office only to be right back in the classroom the next day. Is it the principals sending them back, or Central Admin telling the principals to send them back? I don’t know, but it has to stop.
Children of all ages and all intellects can conform to rules and expectations if they are implemented with courage and committment. That is not the case with D150. Excuses such as “It is their culture- let it slide” are prevalent from what I understand. That is bull**** and until D150 can assure a safe, respectful environment inside every classroom all this other stuff is just rearranging chairs on the Titanic.
Popijw – a your post of the PJS article indicates, the incident this Summer seems to be more about egos and miscommunication, as the charges were dropped.
Diane is correct–kids will not behave if there are no consequences–and teachers have no authority to assign consequences. If a teacher gives a conference, the kids won’t come–they wait (which usually amounts to days because the teacher has to give 2nd chances to serve the conference) until the teacher writes a referral for skipping a conference–then the kid gets punished for skipping the conference, not for the original behavior. At least, that’s what I put up with. By the way, the following was the statement I made last night about Johns Hopkins:
There are rumorsâwhen there is no transparency, there will always be rumorsâand some of us will always be willing to spread them. One rumor is that about 600 Woodruff students will be sent to Manual. Now I have questions about any plan to send any students to Manual.
Manual is now a Johns Hopkins Talent Development School. I recently Googled all the websites pertaining to this program. Every site clearly states that this program was established, developed, and sold as a program for at-risk students and/or low-performing students.
Last year when Manual was a choice school for freshmen, were parents told they would be sending their children to a program designed for low-performing students?
I personally know the parents and/or grandparents of some Manual juniors and seniors who started at Manual before Johns Hopkinsâthey are not low-performing students. Were those parents told that their high-performing young people would be taking courses designed for low-performing students? (I donât think so). Were those students offered the opportunity to go to a school that fits their needs? Will the incoming displaced Woodruff students be offered that opportunity? Of course notâhigh-performing students are Manualâs only hope of raising Manualâs AYP.
I am certainly in favor of programs for low performing studentsâbut I am not in favor of forcing âperformingâ students to be forced into a watered-down programâand there is no doubtâturning one-year courses into semester courses is a watered-down curriculum.
Last year I sent a series of questions about Johns Hopkins to Dr. Hannah, who, in turn, asked Dr. Kherat to answer my questions. She kindly did so. One of my questions dealt with my belief that offering one-semester courses instead of year courses would present problems for students transferring in and out of Manual. Dr. Kheratâs response was that âthe receiving school has to deal with it.â I honestly thought that the central administration should set policy for these problemsâbefore the problems came up. Well, I just heard that there are right now some major problems that are keeping some Manual students from maintaining their credits if they transfer to another 150 high school. Please, board members, look into this situation.
Jon-
If you are that determined to get specifics regarding the incidents at Manual maybe you should visit the school and observe for yourself. Sharon is a very credible individual and I have no doubt she has numerous stories regarding the problems at Manual.
Keith, I’ll probably do that – I also believe Sharon is very credible and I figured she can provide a truer picture of the problems, particularly at Manual, than would a school visit. After all, Laura Petelle, whom I also think is very credible, visited Manual and said on her blog “I was encouraged by the program that theyâre running there and I have hopes for it â and I hope that we will see it through for the 3 to 5 years such changes need to bear fruit.” Laura does seem to agree with Sharon’s call for an alternative school, though.
In any event, I can understand why teachers would be fearful of “whistle blowing” on the principals and/or central administration. Obviously others who tried to explain problems about the system didn’t fare too well. Much the way Sharon lamented the rumors regarding displaced Woodruff students, due to the lack of transparency about the process, it would be helpful if the stories of the outrageous student behavior Diane mentioned – and the administration’s apparent lack of addressing them, could be better substantiated – more transparent. If not, they mostly remain just rumors.
BTW, I do agree with Sharon that if the Johns Hopkins program is geared only towards non-performing students, parents should know that ahead of time.
Finally, though, that’s probably the last thing I’ll say here about this whole discipline issue – I really don’t want to tick anybody else off.
(Incidentally, I’ll probably still talk about things like the claimed class size of 12 at the high schools. When I first looked at the issue, it seemed like a no-brainer that the high schools were not being efficiently run if that number was true – and it comes from the District report card. Sure I was told that the low number was due to specialized education classes – but that still couldn’t explain the number being THAT low. Unless, however, the special ed courses themselves were misrepresented. One teacher talked about an example where a special ed teacher had 4 students in a reading “class”, 4 students in a math “class” and 4 students in a social studies “class”, all during the same class hour. Quite possibly, rather than being described as one class of one teacher with twelve students, it is described as three class of four students each. When computing an average class size, that’s a huge discrepancy. Now, I still can’t claim with 100% certainly that the average class size of 12 at the high schools is correct – I’m about 95% sure it’s not, though. Why all the fuss? Well, I just think you need good data to help make an informed decision. Assuming the district needs to be right-sized (likely), then should we address a high school, middle schools, grade schools – what combination? Also, closing Woodruff isn’t going to fix the district’s financial issues (Gee, it may only save $1.5MM), so why drag this out piece by piece? But I digress)
Presently, with the current director of special education, Mary O’Brian, principals have no power on disciplining special ed students. O’Brian says their behavior is related to their disability (even if they are labeled learning disabled NOT behaviorally disabled). She has convinced may school psychologist and social workers of this also. So when meetings about their behavior take place the students have to stay in school. Hinton has allowed O’Brian to control this. Until O’Brian is gone (she should be next) this problem will not change. O’Brian just does not get it. I think Wolfmeyer supports her, so what does that tell you?
Keith–thanks for your kind words (hope I always live up to them because I do want to be credible) and to Jon. I believe the board and administration hear enough about the discipline problems that they should be heeding it. Martha was upset about hearing from the speaker two weeks ago–he was very explicit about discipline problems and Martha hoped that people wouldn’t believe that 150 students are that bad, etc. They aren’t–but the few can do so much damage that the well-behaved kids aren’t even noticeable. Jeff and I started telling it like it is over 15 years ago–wrote daily reports to board members. They know or, at least, they have been told. Jon, I hope I will soon have some class size information–just FOIAd some information yesterday. So, Jon, why don’t you FOIA some info–I’m doing only high schools–you could do primary and/or middle.
Is it possible that principals are reluctant to suspend students because of pressure from central office to improve ADA (average daily attendance)?
If students are not in school, ADA is lower and the district receives less money. There has been a huge push from the district to improve attendance.
Yes Sharon Crews is credible, so is Dr. Sharon Kherat and Dr. Rita Ali.
Emerge is right. However, there comes a time that–if we disagree–then a decision has to be made as to whose information is credible. Regarding the situation about which I spoke last night–the district did not make it known to parents that the Johns Hopkins program is designed for low-performing students. Sharon would have had to go against her employer to tell parents otherwise. With regard to discipline, there are certainly problems at Manual that need to be addressed–I believe Sharon indicated that the problems exist because teachers haven’t been properly trained and because of “some” influences from the past–the old Manual, which, of course, includes me. Until we can resolve this cause-effect argument, there will be no progress at Manual or in District 150 and the district will continue to have serious problems–now that’s my opinion and deciding the credibility of opinions is a bit more difficult–it is in the eye of the beholder. Sharon and I clearly see things differently. I know that Rita Ali took the 91% attendance figure from what is supposed to be a credible source–and she quoted that percentage in a letter to the editor quite some time ago. Rita was credible; I don’t believe her source was. That led me to FOIA Manual’s attendance for 2nd semester of last year–and from that info I certainly have no idea how the 91% figure was ascertained–that info on the Illinois report card has been a mystery to teachers for a long time.
Some PHS teachers found out today that certain Manual students (many with low test scores) will be transferred over to PHS next week, since this week is the end of the first grading period. Some of them are students with BD, ED, LD, MI or other issues. At least one of them is a student I had last year who is in the Manual area but was refused entry into the “academy” his freshman year. He had multiple dean referrals and suspensions while at PHS. He started at Manual (his home school) this year but they have “choiced” him out of there and back to PHS.
These moves will artificially boost Manual’s test, attendance and suspension numbers while negatively affecting PHS and possibly Richwoods, as there are other students that will be transferring to Richwoods next week as well. (none to Woodruff that I am aware of) I would bet that they do not have the same behavioral/academic issues as the students PHS will be getting.
Also, there is no information on how the MHS students’ classwork in their specialized Johns Hopkins classes will translate to the rest of the D150 high school classes. Will they be ahead or behind? No one knows.
Ah, District 150, where remarkable happens every day!!!
Hot in the City: Last night I addressed the problem of transferring credits from or to Manual–see my speech above. I heard 275 middle school (I think) students were being shuffled this week–have you heard that? What a crazy world! I don’t think you have to worry much about boosting Manual’s AYP–but I think all “teacher” (administrative orders) grades will be boosted no matter what. Cynical? Yes!
Mrs. Wessler – Your allegations are startling. Please disclose more about your insight and how these issues should, in your professional opinion, be addressed. I’d be particularly interested into your plan on how to get these students achieving at an acceptable level. Sharon – I’d encourage you to stop gourging at the rumor trough. It won’t help you when you are chasing after the children. đ Why not pick up on Emerge’s challenge and be a leader at getting more faith-based and service clubs involved in positive reading and mentoring initiatives? Wouldn’t that be more beneficial for the students and the District? That is your aim, right??
Special ed students should only change schools through their IEP. My my, that director of SPED needs to go.
Jim,
I’m not quite sure what you are asking for. I will try to answer your question but if I don’t please let me know and I will try again!
The particular student I posted about (coming back again to PHS from MHS, where he was refused admission his freshman year) is totally capable of achieving at grade level or close to it except for behavior, which is why he is in SpEd. I do not understand why transferring him back to PHS will help him learn how to achieve acceptable behavior in the classroom. He lives in the Manual attendance area. If his behavior is as it was last year, he needs to be at an alternative site until he learns/decides to show acceptable behaviors for ANY general high school, whether it be Manual or Peria High or anywhere else.
In my opinion, moving students like this back to or into Peoria High will only serve to artificially help MHS test scores, suspension and referral issues, etc., and make worse PHS scores in the same areas. It is only logical that sending low-performing and/or high-level discipline issue students to another high school will hurt that high school’s numbers in re test scores, discipline, etc.
The allegations I have made (that is a strong word but I will accept it) is what I have been told tonight. If I learn that it is less than true I will post that as well. I do know that transferring out low-performing/low-attending students will only help the school that transfers them out.
BTW, I totally agreed with your vote last night on the Johns Hopkins plan. I am tired and fed up with this district spending money that they do not have on programs that are not proven for our student demographics. I have great concerns about HS student mobility and receiving appropriate credits for dissimilar work levels.
Please keep in touch. We are not totally oppositional on all issues.
Jim, you absolutely amaze me. Remember that half of my rumors came from you via e-mail or the telephone. Remember that you had also heard that 600 Woodruff students were to be transferred to Manual and YOU called me to find out where I heard the rumor–I told you and you told me where you got yours. You made it clear that the BOE members don’t know anything. You even asked Kherat last night what she knew–and she revealed nothing. Let’s see–you were the one who gave me all the details about the shop teacher who quit at Manual–and Jon, on the blog, accused me of believing someone at a barber shop and spreading rumors. You had a question about the enrollment at Manual’s 7th and 8th grade–YOU called me and asked if the figures you received matched what I had heard. Nothing that I stated at the board meeting last night was rumor–except the 600 students to Manual and I clearly stated it was a rumor (however, I do not believe it is a rumor; I believe it was stated by 150 personnel). And by now they probably have a new plan. What do you mean by “It won’t help when you are chasing after the children.” Jim–please tell me–other than basketball and pancakes, in what academic efforts have you volunteered? I know that you are none to happy with me because I wasn’t willing to try to get our group to put pressure on Petele to ask for a new vote so that you could reopen your idea to close Peoria High–but is that any reason for a public attack? I was honest in telling you that I would like to support your efforts but that I just cannot go along with a plan to close any high school. I thought we had made considerable headway in agreeing as to what 150’s problems are and then you pull this. Quite frankly, I don’t think much of what I say is rumor. Much of what I say is fact that 150 doesn’t want publicized. We are all quite tired of keeping 150’s secrets–most of us did that for far too long for fear we would lose our jobs. You aren’t asking me to stop with the rumors; you are asking me to stop telling too much. I guess I shouldn’t have sent you the e-mail I just sent to you before visiting this blog–I did my little study to see if Kherat’s 70-80% turnover figure was correct. I don’t like being duped–so I will continue to seek the truth. On this blog, we frequently are able to put 2 and 2 together to figure out what 150 is really up to–and you are just as much in the dark as we are. When you figure that out, maybe we can work together to improve 150. Wow! Yes, you irritated me–but that will pass–I’ll continue to allow you to throw me these curves.
Note to self: Do not piss off Sharon.
Hot in the City… excellent points. Moving a child with extreme discipline issues to another school in the hopes that miraculously the discipline issues will self correct is delusional. What I would call a “geographic” fix. Will solve nothing. The geographic fix will impact test scores in more ways than one. Their own, of course, and the test scores of all those around them.
Hot in the City: I remember that whole saga (and, yes, Jim, I FOIAd the information) when Manual set up the phony cap on 9th grade enrollment. They set the cap at 150 when they knew full well that the previous year’s enrollment had been close to 190. Of course, many students in the Manual area did not register or apply ahead of time–they figured Manual was their school and they’d just show up the first day. Remember the screaming parents when those kids were told that Manual was full. The overflow was sent to PHS and WHS. I had heard that PHS had (rightly so) sent those kids back to MHS at the beginning of this year. So I guess the schools are playing football with these kids. They belong at MHS.
“hot” – Thanks for adding some clarity. The answer to the broader question is undoubtably more difficult. Sharon – look at your respone to “hot” on the post above “I heard…….”. I try to disspell inaccuracies as best as I can – but it would be a full time job on this blog alone. You seem to relish the role of town crier. Pardon me for suggesting your talents warrant a different focus, one that serves children. For several years before I got elected (sentenced – as some have suggested), I had “reading buddies” and worked both with individual students and in a classroom setting, the last being with Mrs.Farrakhan and the Reading 180 program @ Trewyn. I look forward to doing programs like that again in a few years, but appreciate all the efforts of First Federated and friends @ TJ that continues, along with the work done by S-W Kiwanis. Much like you challenge an ineffective administration, I challenge you to use your talents to do the most good. Living life on the blogs and not for more children than your favorite family seems to be a waste of what you are truly capable of accomplishing. Complaining at a bi-weekly meeting isn’t leading, and leading is what I think you should be doing.
Jim, admittedly I overdid my response to you–just caught me at a bad moment. I hadn’t recovered from all I heard last night. Actually, I did remember that you had done the reading buddies thing–and helped at First Federated. I guess I gave you a chance to let everyone else know that you had followed your own advice. I know that you can’t quite bring yourself to believe that District Watch and the speakers at BOE meetings do serve a function–but I think they do. Much of what is posted by C.J. on this blog is bringing transparency to a city and a school district that previously did as they pleased with no avenue for bringing inadequacies to light. Certainly the PJS doesn’t do much investigative journalism with regard to District 150.
Jim–what if some students are being moved–would District 150 reveal that to the public–does the public have a right to know if it’s happening and why? Why shouldn’t we use the blogs to bring some of these actions to light? Why shouldn’t we give 150 the opportunity to refute the rumors. We’re not spreading rumors for fun–obviously, we don’t really know if they are rumors or truth. How else will we find out the truth? You have on occasion asked me what our District Watch group is going to discuss on a given night. We don’t have a secret agenda and you are always welcome to join us. I believe any rumors about where the Woodruff students will be placed should be aired. We all should know by now what the plans are.
Jim, No one denies that volunteering and mentoring kids is a vital community role.
That aspiration however, is completely unrelated to our right as taxpayers/citizens/parents to expect sound fiscal management and appropriate educational decision making from our school district.
Your insistance that only the former matters is not a good sign of impending positive change.
Jim – students being moved to other middle schools or high schools, particularly students with performance and/or behavioral issues is something I am interested in knowing and I believe others are interested as well. I think the District should get out in front of this one and manage the communication.
Jim-
It is obvious to me that Sharon and other frequent contibutors on this blog play an important role in helping to make changes with D150. The only way the district will improve it’s image is by the central office communicating honestly to the public and it’s Board members.
As I pointed out in another post you obviously have been frustrated with the administration as you questioned at the end of a recent meeting what it would take for the city to have more oversight of the district.
You can’t have it both ways. Either stop bashing Sharon or stop going to her for information.
Keith: couldnt agree with you more. Jim, shit or get off the pot, as we say dowm here in the holler…
There has been a considerable amount of conversation regarding the impact of test scores of students who are moved from one building to another.
Something the main stream public is not necessarily privy to and administrators are not quick to point out is that scores for students only count for their school if the student was enrolled in that particular school on or before MAY 1st of the previous school year. Therefore, if in fact, there will be some “dumping” of students from Manual, the scores will not negatively impact PHS until next school year (2010-2011) if in fact the student remains enrolled at PHS. Or, if they return to MHS at the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year their scores will not count for MHS either…it is called the shell game. (This example is true at primary and middle schools as well.)
This has been a concern of teachers who receive students the week or two before ISAT/PSAE/ACT is administered. Amazingly it seems as mainly the poorly performing students move at this time of year.
This is one way to keep scores for each school increasing annually!
thanks for the info, someone who knows. so do you think this is what manaual will do with their lowperforming and troubled students?
Quite honestly I’m not certain that Manual can just “dump” students at PHS unless those students have PHS addresses. Hot in the City was probably discussing a situation that has some extenuating circumstances. I can’t see Randy just rolling over to accept students who don’t belong at PHS. Speaking of grades on the NCLB test. I would like some opinions on this subject. How would you feel about requiring that the home schools get credit for the NCLB tests earned at other schools? For instance, some of the best students are taken from home schools to go to Washington Gifted, Northmoor, Richwoods IB program, etc.–the talent is literally drained from the home schools. In this day and age when the NCLB carries so much weight, it might be worth considering to give the home school the scores. The “special” schools could still provide the composite scores from the students earned in their buildings. I think such a system could keep schools from trying to hold on to their higher performing students (and cheating them of better opportunities) just because they test high on NCLB. Just a thought–no original with me. I know some will say that the student’s success is due to attendance at the “special” school–I say that good students excel no matter where they are–and probably sometimes in spite of teachers rather than because of teachers.
Sharon,
This is in fact what happens in smaller districts that do not have the services for all students (usually severely disabled or behavior disorders). Their scores are counted with the sending school’s scores. This is also the case with Alternative school students.
Sharon, just got home and saw your post about NCLB scores going to the home schools, particularly in the case of the high schools. I have stated the same thing (prob not on this blog!) and you made the same case that I have.
High-achieving/testing students, when they are grouped together in one location in a program that is open to the entire district, should be added in to the scores for their home schools. Originally, I used Washington Gifted as an example as it was the first one that came to mind, but the IB program is another good one.
I think a plan could be formulated, at least for the high schools, that would enable the district to meet the need of HS students for more specialization within the three (still think it should be four) high school sites. Some of the ideas that have been put out about campuses geared to specific tracks such as college prep/IB/AP, science/math/tech, vocational/Johns Hopkins, alternative tracks, could be set up without unduly penalizing or benefiting a particular campus.
I am moving ever closer to favoring opening HS enrollments district-wide, with such a plan in place. The district could still have “home schools” that would receive the test scores. It certainly would be a way to keep certain neighborhoods from deteriorating and would, in fact, be helpful to some of the plans for revitalizing the south side. If parents knew their HS students could attend the school that best fit their skill set/interests, they would be more open to living in those areas. Neighborhoods like the Uplands, Moss-Bradley, the Knolls, etc., would not lose families to other districts when the children reached HS age, as they do now in many cases (at least in the Uplands some families have moved away or gone to Notre Dame or Peoria Christian)
Also, my understanding about the Manual students being moved to Peoria High next week has more to do with Manual being a “choice” school (Federal restructuring??) than students being in the PHS attendance area. I don’t think the students can be involuntarily transferred but they can be moved. This is not my area of knowledge so I don’t want to misstate anything.
I’m not sure a principal can refuse a student from a “choice” school unless his/her building is full or the student needs a program that his/her school does not offer, such as a BD or Life Skills program. I was told by multiple sources that Richwoods did that last year (said they were full, and they may or may not have been) when the Manual freshman weren’t admitted to MHS. The popular gossip–and it was only gossip, not verified independently by me!!–was that Richwoods took only one student, who was a freshman female basketball player and all the others went to PHS and WHS.
Hot in the City: Yes, I think we’re on to something–I really believe what you outlined is a great idea. As to your second post, I forgot about the “choice” element–but also wonder why students can “choose” after school has been in session for a grading period. I heard the gossip, too–but your example seems to be proof that it’s more than gossip. Once again, sometimes “rumors” are issues that truly need to be aired in the interest of keeping everyone honest. District 150 is now on very shaky ground–no school can say they are “full” when the district will be proving themselves less than honest when they place the displaced Woodruff students in those “too” full school. Also, with regard to my speech on Monday at the BOE meeting, if Manual maintains the Johns Hopkins program, it will have to be a “choice” school since its program is definitely geared to at-risk and/or low-performing students–no one should be forced to go there. On the other hand, the district is probably going to have to assign Woodruff students there.
Doesn’t the state issue guidelines on how data for school report cards should be assembled? That way there is consistency for comparison purposes.
Personally, I would prefer to see data that is accurate to the kids actually attending the school.
Jon, I don’t know what the state would do–Hot in the City and I were talking about what would work better. I would hope that there could be two sets of scores. All we are saying is that the “choice” schools are destroying the district. It would be the best of both worlds if kids could have a choice but send their scores to the home school. For instance, right now, now “performing” students from the Manual area should not be at Manual since Johns Hopkins is not good for them. They should be given a choice, but Manual should not be further destroyed. It’s even more obvious for the schools from which students were pulled to go to Northmoor Edison and Washington Gifted. Isn’t it amazing how educatiion was probably better before testing and “scorekeeping?” I’m sure there’s no correlation but I don’t think NCLB is helping much.
Hot…
School Choice was not an issue with Richwoods last year so that did not happen. Also, Sharon is correct that receiving Principals within a district can not refuse choice placements.
If you know of this basketball player I will look into the issue to ensure that our policies are consistent. I can proudly state that athletic ability would make no difference.
I have actually denied making any decisions on which students get to come to RHS. Placement of students should be a district level decision based on policy.
Sorry I disagree with students scores being manipulated from school to school. Once a student enrolls in Northmoor or Washington they are a student of that school. The NCLB, as flawed as it may be, is designed to measure the effectiveness of a particular school. Transplanting other students score into a low performing school serves no good purpose and is simply a shell game.
Reorganizing District 150 will not bring stuggling schools back to their glory days (i.e. Manual) but . . . it will better serve the population that exists today.
In the end, I really don’t care how scores are reported, what is most important is students being grouped together to better address their academic needs, whatever they might be. If you take a look at other urban school districts, it has been the key to their revival.
Hey Steve: evidently you didn’t know what Mary Davis was doing at Lindbergh because, it’s my guess that the students she cherry picked for Lindbergh are NOW at Richwoods……….tread lightly, my dear……
Steve P,
I know that I posted that it was gossip about Richwoods taking only one female freshman student from MHS (or MTDAHS) last year. I do not know what the truth is in the situation, but the perception last year was that Richwoods was taking the easy way out and only taking students that would benefit them, regarding the Manual freshmen.
I will try to get the name of the female basketball student from last year and if I do I will let you know. I think the bigger issue is the perception that Richwoods is trying to get out of accepting their fair share of Manual/low-testing students. NOTHING against you personally so please don’t take it that way.
I do believe that you would not have knowingly restricted student enrollment at Richwoods, but that has been the prevailing policy at that high school. Sorry if you have to take the heat for that, but also you may not have been given all pertinent information. Not your fault.
Also, please read and consider what d150 teach has just posted, I believe she has a valid point that impacts your high school’s issues. I do NOT have facts just rumors so I will not post specifics.
I appreciate your willingness to post on blogs using your real name. I know it is difficult when you have a public position. I do not normally post under my real name because of my husband’s job (unless a board member calls me out by my name!)
And I was the one, not Sharon, who posted that principals cannot refuse school choice students unless their buildings are full or they do not offer a program that the student needs (like BD /ED at Richwoods!)
well said, hottie!
Steve: What is the District level policy? I am not sure what the other bloggers are getting at. Why all the seeming hostility toward Richwoods? Richwoods is the one high school within the District that is performing fairly well? Why would the District not want to protect this school from going the same way as all the others?
If a student’s academic needs can be better met by “cherry picking” I am afraid I am not clear why that should not happen.
I was, like, no. And yet, really? Yet, sure, okay, maybe. But then, no, and yet…wow.