Meetings This Week
Monday
- Parent Perspectives on Standardized Testing forum, Thornton Creek Elementary from 6-8 p.m.
- McDonald meeting for families who don't want foreign language immersion from 6:30 - 7:30 p.m. at Lincoln library. (Note; this is not a district-wide meeting and is only about McDonald but it might be interesting to hear what is said.)
- Board Work Session on Capacity Management from 4:00-5:30 p.m.
- School Board meeting from 6-9 p.m. Call first thing Monday morning if you want to speak (252-0040) or boardagenda@seattleschools.org. (I note that President Sundquist did say at the last Board meeting that you should be speaking on the topic you signed up for your slot. I always try to do so but then I include other items. The speakers list has not been full lately so I don't see this as a major issue.)
Comments
Why straight-A's may not get you into UW this year
"In the face of continuing state budget cuts, academic leaders at the University of Washington in February made a painful decision to cut the number of Washington students the school will admit this fall and increase the number of out-of-state and international students, who pay nearly three times as much in tuition and fees..."
MGJ sure got it done.
grumpy
WV: foolar
"The speakers list has not been full lately so I don't see this as a major issue."
At the last meeting there was a long wait list.
The obligation is to have the majority of one's remarks on the topic for which one signed up.
citizen
Since when are high school courses in the "Academy of Finance" considered truly college-prep? In my days at Chief Sealth it was physics, chemistry, biology, AP LA etc.
Believe me, I don't blame the young man. I hope he gets in via waitlist, at least.
I think I blame the idiots who refuse to fund education, yet jump up and down about the "crisis" in our schools.
grumpy
http://www.scribd.com/doc/52272908
Your tax money, being ill-used again.
Meet Michelle Buetow
It includes a link to the STEM update. Some interesting stuff there.
On slide 2 it shows the "Growth Index" numbers on the Winter MAP for the school and compares them to the District's numbers. STEM looks good on this relative measure. What's the benchmark?
Also on slide 2 are the change in the number of students "meeting or exceeding typical growth" on the MAP and shows improvement from last year to this year. Again, this is comparison without a benchmark provided, but we know, from the definition of "meeting or exceeding typical growth" that 65% of all students fall into this range. Since STEM doesn't reach 65% in any of the categories, the conclusion may be that STEM students are improving relative to other students but they are still behind.
Slide 3 shows good imporvement in the attendance rate, but it is still far below the district average. The growth of enrollment report is hilarious. They deserve credit for the enrollment last year, but they should not show projected enrollment for next year. That's just a made-up number. Likewise, the improved culture is just noise until it shows up on the student survey. They are trying to take credit for projected improvements.
Slide 4 lists eight partnerships, several of which (five, I think) Cleveland had before they became STEM. Just a bit deceptive.
The presentation ends with Questions? I have a question: how about a budget update.
Here is one thing that troubled me mightily. Throughout the memo that De Barros and Brad Bernatek prepared, there are several allusions to the fact that we HAVE to do MAP, and we HAVE to roll it out FAST -- WHY? Because SSD accepted grant money that was contingent on implementing student assessments.
This is the stuff that really gives me the creeps. The District takes "free" grant money -- and then the camel, whose nose and entire upper body is now in the tent-- requires us to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, annually, on a test of questionable use, at huge cost to libraries, student computer labs, classtime, etc.
If the statement is correct -- we HAVE to have MAP because we accepted a boat load of money by committing to student assessments -- we need to look at never taking grant money again with these kinds of strings attached.
I wonder if the Board ever knew or understood the implications of those grant funds.