Portal XP Blog Site<br /><span style='font-size: 10px'>DJ's Personal Blog</span>

Stat of the night…

Stat of the night…
10/28/2009 1:31:00 AM

DJ
Posts: 3

So tonight was the Forest PTO meeting and I got an opportunity to listen to Superintendent Sicoli. This being the first time I got to listen/meet with him outside of the normal board room I found him very likeable. (While proofing this I want everyone to know - what I have seen of Dr. Sicoli so far - good guy!) There were several questions that came up during the process and one of them was in regards to mobility, school size and Dr. Sicoli shared an interesting stat. I have to dig into the stats and see if I can verify this one - but there is absolutely no reason not to believe this one.

If you tear back the stats and take out students who have not been enrolled in the district for the past three years. Each and every school at all levels of AYP measurement would have passed. Every school. Every level. Again, no reason not to believe it.

So what does this tell you? Mobility is issue #1. I'm pretty sure this isn't going to shock many people. This won't shock teachers, administration or parents. So what do we do about it? We cannot stop people from moving.

Elementary schools. Lets start our focus there. This one will cost some money but I really think we need to rethink our traditional grade level. In particular for students who enroll mid-year. Let's asses the students and their current level and lets create some classroom to help these students. Focused specifically on the areas of need. If the student tests high - then send them to the normal grade level. Otherwise, lets do a little clustering and design some programs to help these students. Win win for the students and the district.

Oh, one other items shared. Early results from a neighboring school looking at all-day vs half-day K. Remove the mobility factor and compare. Achievement gap is nearly gone. We have the solutions. Lets get a way to fund them and start to rock and roll. This is a great district and we should be darn proud of it.

Re: Stat of the night…
10/28/2009 10:51:16 AM

Christine

An interesting idea was brought up in the discussion of the K-6 plan. It was suggested by a district parent that had Lakeview and Northport be co-located in RALC with Spanish Immersion, there could be a "mobility magnet" school there to target services to those kids. They could have shared transportation with RSI, so they could live or move anywhere in the district and be guaranteed a ride to school. And that school could target services to those kids that come in the district behind and try to get them caught up. I suppose it would also be segregating them in a sense, but their test scores wouldn't be bringing the other schools down and they'd be receiving the help they need.

I know one concern from the district was that they didn't know if they would be allowed to count RSI and the combined elementary as separate schools if they were in the same building. Combining their population for statistical purposes would have evened them out with the rest of the district-- on paper, but it would have "watered down" the poverty level, causing the combined elementary to lose compensatory funding. Stan Mack said literally that they wanted to keep the poverty concentrated as much as possible to maximize their funding.

Reply #1

Re: Stat of the night…
10/28/2009 2:16:56 PM

I interpreted Stan Mack's comments quite differently. The concept of a "mobility magnet" wasn't raised in the school closing discussions and may have some merit. However, based on the facts available at the time, it would have been a lose/lose/lose for the Northport/Lakeview students. They move to a 3-story former high school; their new school has about 1,000 students; they are in the same building as a separate, affluent 600 student school; because of the lack of poverty in the separate 600 student school they lose their extra funding which is used for specific interventions based on their needs; yet nothing in this brilliant scenario changed their needs. Same poverty level, same issues. Maybe the RSI parents would have raised some PTA money for them, but that can't remotely take the place of compensatory money. Many of us had concerns with the former superintendent, but making his statements on this topic seem villainous is really off base. Combining the schools to get a better poverty rate may have been better optics, but a sham, and a shame.

Reply #2

pingMdBamiYP
12/28/2009 10:48:02 AM

skxblqnju	Quote: Christine An interesting idea was brought up in the discussion of the K-6 plan. It was suggested by a district parent that had Lakeview and Northport be co-located in RALC with Spanish Immersion, there could be a "mobility magnet" school there to target services to those kids. They could have shared transportation with RSI, so they could live or move anywhere in the district and be guaranteed a ride to school. And that school could target services to those kids that come in the district behind and try to get them caught up. I suppose it would also be segregating them in a sense, but their test scores wouldn't be bringing the other schools down and they'd be receiving the help they need. I know one concern from the district was that they didn't know if they would be allowed to count RSI and the combined elementary as separate schools if they were in the same building. Combining their population for statistical purposes would have evened them out with the rest of the district-- on paper, but it would have "watered down" the poverty level, causing the combined elementary to lose compensatory funding. Stan Mack said literally that they wanted to keep the poverty concentrated as much as possible to maximize their funding.

	Reply #3

jxdGSvaMlJHXGM
12/28/2009 11:00:04 AM

ymcyclwado	Quote: JJ I interpreted Stan Mack's comments quite differently. The concept of a "mobility magnet" wasn't raised in the school closing discussions and may have some merit. However, based on the facts available at the time, it would have been a lose/lose/lose for the Northport/Lakeview students. They move to a 3-story former high school; their new school has about 1,000 students; they are in the same building as a separate, affluent 600 student school; because of the lack of poverty in the separate 600 student school they lose their extra funding which is used for specific interventions based on their needs; yet nothing in this brilliant scenario changed their needs. Same poverty level, same issues. Maybe the RSI parents would have raised some PTA money for them, but that can't remotely take the place of compensatory money. Many of us had concerns with the former superintendent, but making his statements on this topic seem villainous is really off base. Combining the schools to get a better poverty rate may have been better optics, but a sham, and a shame.

	Reply #4

ofQZHxwhivRzj
2/11/2010 3:46:39 PM

knfvywso	Quote: JJ I interpreted Stan Mack's comments quite differently. The concept of a "mobility magnet" wasn't raised in the school closing discussions and may have some merit. However, based on the facts available at the time, it would have been a lose/lose/lose for the Northport/Lakeview students. They move to a 3-story former high school; their new school has about 1,000 students; they are in the same building as a separate, affluent 600 student school; because of the lack of poverty in the separate 600 student school they lose their extra funding which is used for specific interventions based on their needs; yet nothing in this brilliant scenario changed their needs. Same poverty level, same issues. Maybe the RSI parents would have raised some PTA money for them, but that can't remotely take the place of compensatory money. Many of us had concerns with the former superintendent, but making his statements on this topic seem villainous is really off base. Combining the schools to get a better poverty rate may have been better optics, but a sham, and a shame.

	Reply #5

ZRcFBSIpkZnAMZyxoWD
2/11/2010 3:52:30 PM

iztwyuhs	Quote: skxblqnju Quote: Christine An interesting idea was brought up in the discussion of the K-6 plan. It was suggested by a district parent that had Lakeview and Northport be co-located in RALC with Spanish Immersion, there could be a "mobility magnet" school there to target services to those kids. They could have shared transportation with RSI, so they could live or move anywhere in the district and be guaranteed a ride to school. And that school could target services to those kids that come in the district behind and try to get them caught up. I suppose it would also be segregating them in a sense, but their test scores wouldn't be bringing the other schools down and they'd be receiving the help they need. I know one concern from the district was that they didn't know if they would be allowed to count RSI and the combined elementary as separate schools if they were in the same building. Combining their population for statistical purposes would have evened them out with the rest of the district-- on paper, but it would have "watered down" the poverty level, causing the combined elementary to lose compensatory funding. Stan Mack said literally that they wanted to keep the poverty concentrated as much as possible to maximize their funding.

	Reply #6

JIDbvLWrcAaOfjkDuO
2/11/2010 4:37:49 PM

kwjwsxrmt	Quote: Christine An interesting idea was brought up in the discussion of the K-6 plan. It was suggested by a district parent that had Lakeview and Northport be co-located in RALC with Spanish Immersion, there could be a "mobility magnet" school there to target services to those kids. They could have shared transportation with RSI, so they could live or move anywhere in the district and be guaranteed a ride to school. And that school could target services to those kids that come in the district behind and try to get them caught up. I suppose it would also be segregating them in a sense, but their test scores wouldn't be bringing the other schools down and they'd be receiving the help they need. I know one concern from the district was that they didn't know if they would be allowed to count RSI and the combined elementary as separate schools if they were in the same building. Combining their population for statistical purposes would have evened them out with the rest of the district-- on paper, but it would have "watered down" the poverty level, causing the combined elementary to lose compensatory funding. Stan Mack said literally that they wanted to keep the poverty concentrated as much as possible to maximize their funding.

	Reply #7

fPwmjNnTSTSkyyPEO
2/11/2010 4:40:18 PM

edizcq	Quote: ymcyclwado Quote: JJ I interpreted Stan Mack's comments quite differently. The concept of a "mobility magnet" wasn't raised in the school closing discussions and may have some merit. However, based on the facts available at the time, it would have been a lose/lose/lose for the Northport/Lakeview students. They move to a 3-story former high school; their new school has about 1,000 students; they are in the same building as a separate, affluent 600 student school; because of the lack of poverty in the separate 600 student school they lose their extra funding which is used for specific interventions based on their needs; yet nothing in this brilliant scenario changed their needs. Same poverty level, same issues. Maybe the RSI parents would have raised some PTA money for them, but that can't remotely take the place of compensatory money. Many of us had concerns with the former superintendent, but making his statements on this topic seem villainous is really off base. Combining the schools to get a better poverty rate may have been better optics, but a sham, and a shame.

	Reply #8

IdeULDIHIm
2/20/2010 12:16:25 AM

urcofjff	Quote: JJ I interpreted Stan Mack's comments quite differently. The concept of a "mobility magnet" wasn't raised in the school closing discussions and may have some merit. However, based on the facts available at the time, it would have been a lose/lose/lose for the Northport/Lakeview students. They move to a 3-story former high school; their new school has about 1,000 students; they are in the same building as a separate, affluent 600 student school; because of the lack of poverty in the separate 600 student school they lose their extra funding which is used for specific interventions based on their needs; yet nothing in this brilliant scenario changed their needs. Same poverty level, same issues. Maybe the RSI parents would have raised some PTA money for them, but that can't remotely take the place of compensatory money. Many of us had concerns with the former superintendent, but making his statements on this topic seem villainous is really off base. Combining the schools to get a better poverty rate may have been better optics, but a sham, and a shame.

	Reply #9