I’ve been looking at the Interactive Illinois Report Card for District 150. Here are the total expenditures of District 150 for a period of eleven years, 1997-2008; in the last column, I converted all the amounts into constant 2008 dollars to make it easier to compare apples to apples:
|
 |
Looking at the inflation-adjusted dollars, and acknowledging that it does appear to have started a downward trend, you’ll nevertheless notice that from 1997 to 2008, operational expense per student has increased over 17%. However, if you look at enrollment over roughly the same period (1998-2009), the trend is different:
|
 |
I wanted to include the 2008-2009 data so you could see that enrollment did go up slightly that year. Nevertheless, enrollment from 1998 through 2009 fell by 9.4%. As a result, operating expense per student has increased over 24% — from $9,184 in 1997 (in inflation-adjusted dollars) to $11,398 in 2008.
Questions: Why have operational expenses continued to climb while enrollment has been decreasing? Why are expenses $25.4 million more in 2008 than in 1997 (in inflation-adjusted dollars) when enrollment fell by over 1,400 students? Where is the money going?
If I might be so bold as to try to change the tenor a little. For those of you who love jargon and adages: Big minds discuss ideas, little minds discuss people.
I would just like to try to understand the testing and results better. I have friends who are teachers in different districts in the area so I am not trying to indict any district. I just want a better understanding of the data. I admit that I need better understanding. Like many, I only glance at the results.
Let’s say that group A takes the NCLB test in 2009 and 60 out of 100 students meet or exceed. So, 60% meet and exceed. ( I won’t even attempt sub groups at this time.)
Group B takes the test in 2010 and 65 of 100 student meet or exeed or 65%.
So, the school is considered to have made a 5% improvement. Is that correct?
Questions:
Do the powers that be ever compare Group A’s results to the last time they took the test? Perhaps 50 out of 100 passed. So, in the time between the tests, that group improved 10%–ten more students are now working at the correct level. Or, do the powers that be only compare Group A to Group B?
Do the powers that be only report percentages or do they convert the percentages into the actual number of students impacted? I believe that the schools do this but what about the powers that be?
Also, what do the schools do for the seniors that do not meet or exceed as juniors before releasing them into society? Their used to be an exit test to get a diploma. Do they have anything like that anymore? What is done to help these students develop the skills that they need to succeed in the workforce and society?
Please graciously forgive my ignorance. Thank you.
Maddy, of course, you have hit on the major flaw of NCLB testing. Schools, not students, are judged because Group A students are only compared to Group B students. In other words, at the high school level, last year’s juniors are compared to the next year’s juniors–and on and on it goes.
Consequently, once the juniors have taken the test, no one looks at those scores to see how to help those young people improve for their senior year. Schools are interested only in working with the next group of juniors. Students bear absolutely no consequences for their results on these tests–which, also, accounts for the fact that many students do not even try to pass the tests.
One other mystery about the test–at least, I am not aware of what score students need to make on the tests to be considered passing. Does a student have to get 50%, 70%, 90%–I don’t know (I’d like an answer if anyone else knows). NCLB is based on the percentage of students who pass the tests–but, again, I don’t know what “passing” means.
Maddy,
Sharon may be correct in speaking for high school and their analysis of the PSAE data. However, as an educator of the rest of the grade levels I think I can speak to your data questions.
In the earlier grades student scores are compared to what they did last year through cohort data. In other words, if I am a primary principal I can review cohorts to see how my teachers did at teaching at the various grade levels by comparing test results of students in 3rd grade, then when they were in 4th grade and then when they were in 5th grade. (If I have a good relationship with the middle school principal receiving these kids, I might share it with them so they can look at the students’ data from 3rd through 8th grades.) By reviewing analyzing data, I can make sure my students are improving each year. I can also drill deeply into the data to see what content strands groups of students did well in and which ones they did not. This can effect the professional development I provide for my teachers.
It is not an easy task to analyze ISAT or PSAE data, but it is definitely worth the effort. Sadly D150 hasn’t followed that philosophy in the past. I hope the new administration sees the benefits to deep analysis by each school, not just by central office administration!
Sharon,
Go to the ISBE web site and look up cut scores for ISAT. You will find what level (academic warning, below grade level, meets or exceeds)each score represents.
I usually like your posts, but I must admit, you make yourself look quite foolish when you try to talk about things you know very little about. Please educate yourself on these matters by reviewing the ISBE web site (www.isbe.net) and/or the Illinois Interactive Report Card site (www.iirc.niu.edu).
Thank you. So, Colleen, the younger grades are tested each year. Is that correct? Does the state or feds then compare how those students are progressing each year to judge whether a school is passing or failing? I can see where yearly tests would be an excellent tool. That makes sense. Are high school students tested each year or just the junior year. That seems to be the only year that the data is reported. Thank you for helping me to better understand.
Jon keeps telling Sharon the same thing (“…you make yourself look quite foolish when you try to talk about things you know very little about.”), but she won’t stop.
Colleen and Hey, Colleen (or Jim), I readily agreed to my ignorance (not sure about my foolishness) with regard to scoring of ISAT tests and analyzing the data, etc. Admittedly, having retired in 2005, I left just as the NCLB testing craze was taking hold. In my era, only college bound students took the ACT tests, and schools did little to analyze the data (not even sure how much data was received). To add to my ignorance (to keep teachers in the dark)for many years, District 150 refused to let teachers look at standardized test results for fear we would prejudge our students–now that was really stupid.
However, I do believe my response to Maddy’s question about the comparing of Groups A and B was accurate, not foolish. 🙂 NCLB does not compare an individual student’s progress from grade to grade. I am very sure that today in District 150 the lower grade teachers do use test data from one year to the next to prepare students for future NCLB tests. However, as I stated (and I clearly was speaking only of the 11th grade test), test results are not used to get seniors ready for college or jobs, etc. The reason, of course, is obvious (but wrong); NCLB does not hold the schools accountable for students after grade 11.
I should have clarified in my earlier “foolish” comment that explaining the scoring is not that easy to explain to the average person (or to me) in that there is a difference between scores and performance levels, etc.
I have the sites to which you referred on my “Favorites” list as I go there often. This statement from the site probably comes close to providing the answer to my question: “How are the ISAT Performance Levels Derived? Assessment experts and teachers use statistical analysis and age-appropriate standards to set cut points on the scale scores of students throughout the state for each test and grade level. These scale score cut points are calculated to define the score range for each of the Performance Levels (exceeds standards, meets standards, below standards, and academic warning). In this way, the test score an individual student receives can be converted to that student’s proper performance level. For example in the 2009 ISAT assessment for grade 6 reading, scores from 120 to 166 were academic warning, scores from 167 to 219 were below standards, scores from 220 to 256 were meeting standards, and scores of 257 and above were exceeding standards.
Effective with the 2005-06 school year, ISAT scores are equated across grades, meaning that the test scores can be compared from year to year, grade to grade, giving a real measure of student progress. Thanks to equating, ISAT scale scores for reading, mathematics and science all range from a uniform score of 120 points at the low end to about 400 points at the upper end, depending on the grade of the assessment. Since the scores are equated across grades, the ranges are higher with each successive grade. The only exception is writing. Because the scores in writing cannot be equated, the scale score range is 6 to 33 points for all grades. To learn more about how the ISAT scale scores are grouped by Performance Level, go to http://www.isbe.net/assessment/pdfs/cut_points_10.pdf “
See what I mean?
Sharon – I am no more Hey Colleen than I am Lance T on the pjstar site questioning much the same as OTHERS here.
Jim has got his worker bees posting all over this blog, hasn’t he? LOL
I know that, Jim–but it’s my way of finding out if you’re “listening.” 🙂 I figured you enjoyed hearing someone calling me foolish. However, I did really believe that it was you who wrote under the name of “Mack Daddy.” If not, others do have your style down pat. Hey, Colleen, is hanging in with us, too. It’s just one of those rainy Saturday afternoons when we all have nothing else to do. Where’s Jon. The truth is that when Jon calls me foolish, he is just giving as good as he gets. I’ve never felt that he was disrespectful. Jim, I’m OK with your brand of disrespectfulness to me–as I’ve said before you were respectful when it counted–to me, you’re still that teenager that slept in my class. 🙂
Maddy,
The State, nor the Feds, utilize a student’s scores from one grade level to another to determine achievementor for the student individually or for the school. There has been a movement for the past several years in Illinois to use a growth model which utilizes not only each individual student’s growth, but also progress made by the school in each subject area tested. Sadly, this is a politically charged debate and doesn’t seem to get very far.
Colleen, I was not aware that the state utilizes a student’s score from one grade level to another. It’s possible that I do not understand what you are saying. So are you saying that the state maintains a record of each student, adding test results for each year that NCLB tests are taken? In other words, does the state keep records that show an individual student’s growth from one test year to another to show whether or not the individual student is making progress? I have been under the impression that the state keeps only a record of a school’s progress (the percentage of students who pass the test–AYP)to see if the school is improving, etc.
Sharon – Colleen is saying they DO NOT. Read the first sentence of Colleen’s post again.
According to its web site, the Charter School will be using MAP testing, which does measure individual student performance over time. It is typically administered at the beginning and end of the school year. MAP offers a extensive data base of others schools in which the Charter School can compare its results.
Frustrated, you are right–I read the “nor” as “not”–because “nor” should not be used without “neither” when connecting two subjects–as in Neither the state nor the Feds…. My correction of her grammar changed the meaning. 🙂 I thought she was saying, “The state, not the Feds, utilize..
As to the MAP, I will have to try to remember to watch the tape of last Monday’s board meeting, which should air tomorrow night. I think Dr. Kennedy mentioned MAP, but I may have that confused with some other program that she mentioned for which she has had training.
Now I’m confused by your last sentence. MAP offers an extensive data base of “what”–others schools in which the Charter School can compare its results??? Are you saying that the charter school will compare its results with those of other schools?
Along with the MAP test allowing for the school to track the progress of each individual student, it is my understanding it offers a vast and varied database.
For example my children took the MAP test at an international private school, so the school showed us cummulative data as to how our school was performing against other similar international schools.
It was my understanding that the U.S. database could be differentiated so that the Charter School could compare itself to other Charter Schools, or schools in an urban-setting, etc.
Frustrated, I find it amazing that so many who were educated over 30 years ago (before technology spawned all this test-taking and analyzing craze) were able to receive an education. I might argue that most of us received a better education than that received by today’s children who are tested to death. I believe the huge rise in the cost of education is due to the expense of paying for all this data-collecting technology.
Sharon, did you see that Michelle Ungurait’s husband has also joined the District 150 money gravy train at $75,000.00 a year. I must admit that is almost a paupers salary for a District 150 administrator.
…and it was pointed out on another blog that he was hired in @ $25k less than the person who previously held position(Grzanich?).
So did they in effect give Michelle a $75,000 raise or is her husband just another suckling at the teat?
Yes, he has been on the list since his wife was hired. At first, he was called a “benchmark specialist”–a course of study that wasn’t available when I was in college. 🙂
I’m not sure if Mr. Stowell or Ms. Patelle are reading this blog anymore, but I have a question for them (or anyone else who may have knowledge on the topic).
It was brought to my attention that Kelly O’Neill
(AKA the student teacher named in the former Lindbergh Principal’s lawsuit for making a deal with Mary Davis to be paid part-time salary as an aide while she student taught full time and then would work full-time as an aide second semester for part-time pay as long as she could continue receiving her pay check while student teaching…BTW in case anyone is wondering a check was actually cut before the former principal stopped it!)
was hired by the district as a full time teacher at Glen Oak. Wow! I find it hard to believe the district would not hire the former principal back given the indictment of Mary Davis, but would hire someone who coluded to bilk the district out of funds…am I off track in my thinking, or is it ok to hire thiefs to teach our children?
Mr.Stowell and Ms. Patelle, can you please chime in on this matter? It is quite disconcerting to us taxpayers. BTW, Kelly O’Neill was hired after the new superintendent started.
Dist 150 watcher: I know that you will defend any wrongdoings to your last breath but at least try and be honest in answering the following questions.
How many other applicants do you think were interviewed for the job that Ungurait’s husband was hired for? Do you think that because ( I’m sure it didn’t…wink wink nod nod) his wife was hired that had any influence on him being hired too?
I guess it was just a total coincidence that he just happened to get lucky enough to get hired by the same employer that hired his wife, right? Please, may I have another glass of Koolaid?
Constance…you are off track. She is not a thief. Mary Davis may have been, but Kelly was not even alleged to be a thief. She is only accused of stretching her semester’s pay over two semesters. It is no different than teachers getting paid over the summer in my opinion.
Average teacher, help me understand because I have never heard an explanation of this situation before–all I heard was that she was paid for student teaching. My interpretation of what you just said is that Kelly was paid 1st semester for work she would be doing 2nd semester (since there was no way she could earn pay for being an aid while she was a full-time student teacher). Is that what you are saying? Therefore, your comparison to teachers’ being paid in the summer doesn’t hold up. Teachers earned their pay during the school year–but prefer to have smaller checks all year so that they can be paid in the summer. In other words, teachers already earned the money whereas Kelly was paid before she earned the money. It just doesn’t seem like a wise policy to pay people before they do the work.
Hey, Johnnie, didn’t you write last week:
“from what I have heard some of the new hires got LARGE salary increases over their predecessors.”
Did that recent PJStar article bear out that rumor?
Wow! A student teacher who is not an employee of the district is entitled to spread their pay out over two semesters while only working one(which hasn’t been worked yet.)? I think if you run that by the Attorney General they would call it something else. Also, if she works full-time second semester, she should be paid full-time pay…I believe that is the law.
Oh, well. I was wondering the school board’s take on it.
Interesting this woman has been hired. Someone who allegedly must have lied on their income taxes, since two semesters of the same school year do not fall in the same tax year, and is involved in a lawsuit with the district has been hired full-time? You may blame Mary Davis all you like, but if what Constance is saying is true, the student teacher seems to have been unethical in my opinion, also. Shame on the board and whoever else was involved in hiring this person if it is true.
I would like clarification on this from any board members reading the blog, too, especially since it is our tax dollars paying for this.
Jon, just because one this particular new hire will be paid less, doesn’t mean that there aren’t some who got increases that make their pay higher than that of their predecessors. So far we have been asked only to believe everything we hear; we haven’t yet seen a list of last year’s administrators and their salaries compared to this year’s administrators and their salaries. Frankly, the one whose salary seems high to me is that of last year’s Woodruff principal who now earns $139,000 for doing a job that would not and will not pay that much after she retires. I don’t begrudge her the salary, but she should have been given a job commensurate with her duties.
Jon: Did you see every new hire and their salary in that article? They weren’t all listed for the reason that some were hired in at larger salaries than the ones that retired.
Since you have chimed in to defend your boss, what’s your opinion of the new ass’t superintendent getting a $75,000.00 a year salary for her hubby too with District 150?
Do those ads for Peoria school superintendents mention to bring all of your friends and spouses too because we’ll put all of them on the taxpayers payroll?
Isn’t the Assistant Director of Human Resources making more than the actual Director of Human Resources? I think Dunn is making more than her boss, Dimke.
Just Wonderin’ – since it is OUR tax dollars, you must be strongly against paying out settlements, no? …….unless it is your hand that is out. Johnnie – don’t you long for your glory days of the Hinton admin where you could hide but still get paid?
I am just sying that spreading a semester’s salary over a school year is not thievery. She worked a semester and she got paid a semester as far as I can tell. So what did she STEAL? Use the proper words is all I am saying. Is it wise on the districts part to do this? NO. Is it Kelly’s fault? NO, the district worked out the deal as far as I am concerened and they are culpable. Should they have hired her? I don’t know.
just askin’: Hinton was a master of the nepotism practice in my opinion.
Has anybody seen Jon? We asked him a tough question that required honesty and he jetted from the room. Oh I know why he left the room, admin employees are gone for the day so he’ll have to wait until he gets home or back at work tomorrow to comment.
Sharon, the comparison was in the PJStar last week. The paper has a list of names and salaries from last year to this year (the online version does not).
Johnnie, perhaps you can tell us all who was not listed that got paid so much more than their predecessors? Or should we just believe your claims? I don’t work for District 150, so your assumption is, alas, incorrect. I don’t have a problem with Brad Ungarait making $75k to do a job in Peoria that is essentially the same as what he did in NC for $75k.
Many times, for different companies, I have worked with both spouses at the same company. If I were the employer, it can be troubling because if you lose one person for whatever reason, you’ll likely lose both. On the other hand, if I’ve hired what I consider to be a high quality employee, then chances are, that person’s spouse will more than likely be a similar quality employee. Not always, of course, but the odds are better than not.
You have to be wearing blinders to defend these hiring actions from this new administration. Are they the first ones to do this and the answer is no but we were suppose to be leaving behind that kind of graft and corruption wiht all of these new faces?
Wrong again, Johnnie.
Jon, you probably wouldn’t have that attitude about her husband having an exclusive right to a job just because she got hired, if you too had been an applicant and or qualified for that job.
Oh and before you say anything, I wasn’t wanting that job either. It is just a perfect example of nepotism.
Jon I’m not wrong and that is what scares you!!
Jon who are you trying to convince that you are nothing more than a Lathan Lackey, you or the other bloggers?
Yea, I’m really scared 🙂 Is the best you can do is claim that I’m employed by the District, a Lathan Lackey, or scared? Really?
The McArdle lawsuit paints a slightly different picture:
11.
On August 11, 2008, McArdle first met Kelly O’Neill. That afternoon Mary Davis
telephoned McArdle and instructed me to leave Kelly O’Neill on the payroll for part time half pay because she will be on the payroll as a full time aide with part time pay second semester after she graduates. Davis directed McArdle not to inform Eureka College that O’Neill was teaching at Lindbergh School where her twin boys attended because that violated the rules of Eureka College.
12.
McArdle’s secretary received a telephone call from Payroll asking why Kelly O’Neill was being paid to student teach. McArdle instructed her secretary to respond O’Neill was being paid to student teach which resulted in the cancellation of the compensation Mary Davis had arranged for O’Neill to receive in violation of the terms of the student teacher’s contract with Eureka College and School District 150’s authorization for expenditure of funds.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14749706/McArdle-Lawsuit
In other words, it would appear that it was the Payroll department that stopped this from happening. McArdle was presumably going to follow what her boss Davis told her to do (McArdle doesn’t claim in her lawsuit that she called Payroll to stop it) but, also, was not going to lie about the situation when/if questioned.
Looking at O’Neill, isn’t it quite possible that she, having been employed by the district for several years as an aide, and presumably having been offered a job for the second semester, simply asked her boss Davis if she COULD spread out her pay, and Davis said yes. When payroll said “no”, didn’t O’Neill essentially say “OK” and then worked as a student teacher for no pay and then as an aide for full pay the 2nd semester?
So, if McArdle knows this spreading out of the payments arrangement was wrong, why didn’t she proactively report it? From what I know of her, she is very principled and wouldn’t idly sit by, despite what her boss said, if she knows something is wrong. But maybe she wasn’t 100% sure it was wrong. And maybe O’Neill didn’t think it was wrong either. Maybe all O’Neill did was ask the question.
A step in the right direction, but their salaries are obviously too high, or the total cost would be down. How about a 3 year pay freeze now, Ms. Superindent?
Jon, you are the one that scares me in that no matter how corrupt this administration has the appearance of being you are more than willing to defend it. That is what is truly scary.
For someone who claims to have no ties to District 150 you certainly defend it with great passion and you seem to know things that ordinary John Q. Citizen wouldn’t know.
Maybe McArdle was afraid she might get fired for reporting that, oh wait she did get fired for reporting that.
Kelly O’Neill did not resign her “aide” position at Lindbergh until September 15, 2008(check board minutes), almost a month after she started student teaching. Did she not know that she was going to be student teaching in August of 2008? Any ethical person would have resigned their position at the end of the previous school year. She also knew that she was NOT supposed to student teach where she was previously an aide AND where her children all attended. All student teachers are told that. I smell something fishy…….if she is that dumb, I wouldn’t want her teaching my kids….especially ETHICS!
Ahhh, thank you, Johnnie. I take that you mean I am not “ordinary”.
Johnnie, you say this 4 month old administration is “corrupt”, but you still don’t back up that claim with any facts. Where is the comparison list of newly hired persons who have such higher salaries than their predecessors?
For me, it’s not necessarily so much about defending District 150 as it is challenging the baseless claims. District 150 has its problems, many of its own doing, to be sure.
People like Jon, District 150 Watcher et al would continue to defend the Lathan crew even if she bought and published a full page advertisement in the newspaper saying that she did do things wrong. Their minds are made up so don’t confuse them with facts.
Smell something fishy? Sure. But call her a thief, imply she broke Illinois laws and lied on her income taxes?