October 2, 20197 yr My assumption for JCPS having looked at the ratings for Warren County - track the poverty rate of the schools and you’re likely to find a correlation.
October 2, 20197 yr My assumption for JCPS having looked at the ratings for Warren County - track the poverty rate of the schools and you’re likely to find a correlation. This isn't a surefire answer for rural districts (although it is close), but the correlation is definitely there in urban districts.
October 2, 20197 yr JCPS performance = job security for private schools in Jefferson Co. Its a Catch-22. If the private school kids went to public schools then public schools would be better. But public schools in Jefferson County aren't good so private school kids don't go there.
October 2, 20197 yr I know Fern Creek was on the CSI list about 4 years ago. They battled their way out of this list the last time I heard. Now they are back on it. It would be interesting to see the changes at that school over time to see if there were any indications of what led to the up and down movement. The enrollment numbers really seem to fluctuate in Jefferson County. Just some numbers (and these are male enrollment's based on KHSAA football numbers): Fern Creek -2015: 873 boys -2016: 874 boys -2017: 888 boys -2018: 942 boys -2019: 894 boys Jeffersontown -2015: 814 -2016: 741 -2017: 681 -2018: 663 -2019: 521 Moore -2015: 495 -2016: 527 -2017: 559 -2018: 601 -2019: 601 Iroquois -2015: 623 -2016: 633 -2017: 682 -2018: 724 -2019: 605 I point these out only to say if the fluctuation in male (and subsequently female) numbers are that large over just a brief period of time, then that likely means teachers are being moved from one location to another as well. Why are the numbers changing so drastically? Are more people moving in our out of these locations? Are students allowed to jump from one JCPS school to another? I'm very unfamiliar with the JCPS district but am very familiar with districts in the state and that type of fluctuation is unusual in most areas.
October 2, 20197 yr The enrollment numbers really seem to fluctuate in Jefferson County. Just some numbers (and these are male enrollment's based on KHSAA football numbers): .... That maybe the result of changing 'magnet' program or other program that are meant to meet the racial make-up guidelines. Its odd that at one time all the JCPS schools were in the 4A class for football when there was only 4 classes. As someone who went to Central/Seneca it is strange to see the JCPS HSs not be in the largest classes for football.
October 2, 20197 yr Slow, This is the article it all came from: JCPS has most of Kentucky's low-performing schools as reading, math scores dip in 218-19 | In-depth | wdrb.com This is also another supporting article: Many JCPS schools fare poorly in new star rating system I wouldn't think significantly more than half would be below average. From the first article: JCPS schools identified as CSI are: Atkinson Academy (bottom 5%) Breckinridge-Franklin Elementary (bottom 5%) Byck Elementary (bottom 5%) Camp Taylor Elementary (bottom 5%) Cane Run Elementary (bottom 5%) Coleridge-Taylor Montessori Elementary (bottom 5%) Engelhard Elementary (bottom 5%) Frayser Elementary (bottom 5%) Gilmore Lane Elementary (bottom 5%) Greenwood Elementary (bottom 5%) Jacob Elementary (bottom 5%) Kennedy Montessori Elementary (bottom 5%) King Elementary (bottom 5%) Maupin Elementary (bottom 5%) McFerran Preparatory Academy (bottom 5%) Mill Creek Elementary (bottom 5%) Minors Lane Elementary (bottom 5%) Price Elementary (bottom 5%) Rangeland Elementary (bottom 5%) Roosevelt-Perry Elementary (bottom 5%) Shelby Traditional Academy (bottom 5%) Trunnell Elementary (bottom 5%) Watson Lane Elementary (bottom 5%) Wellington Elementary (bottom 5%) Wheatley Elementary (bottom 5%) Young Elementary (bottom 5%) Conway Middle (bottom 5%) Frederick Law Olmsted Academy North (bottom 5%) Knight Middle (bottom 5%) Newburg Middle (bottom 5%) Robert Frost Sixth-Grade Academy (bottom 5%) Stuart Academy (bottom 5%) Thomas Jefferson Middle (bottom 5%) Doss High (bottom 5%) Iroquois High (bottom 5%, graduation rate) The Academy @ Shawnee (bottom 5%, graduation rate) Western High (bottom 5%, graduation rate) If you plot these schools on a map the geographical pattern is obvious. Almost all are west of I-65 (Newburg schools are notable exception) and many are along Dixie Highway corridor. As Getslow said above - the schools can be very good or very bad in Jefferson. For whatever reason this differentiation is very geographically based.
October 2, 20197 yr When you add it up, it sounds like almost a complete lack of accountability.Far from it. There is major accountability. If you don’t make the numbers, you can have people from the state education department (educational recovery specialists) come in and take over your school. It’s not pleasant. The principal can also be fired. The problem is that 1) the metrics are questionable and 2) it falls on impoverished schools or ones with a large minority populations.
October 2, 20197 yr My assumption for JCPS having looked at the ratings for Warren County - track the poverty rate of the schools and you’re likely to find a correlation. Bingo.
October 2, 20197 yr My assumption for JCPS having looked at the ratings for Warren County - track the poverty rate of the schools and you’re likely to find a correlation. Years ago I heard of a study that demonstrated a strong positive correlation between school performance and the number of pairs of shoes in parents’ closets. Edited October 2, 20197 yr by mcpapa
October 2, 20197 yr My assumption for JCPS having looked at the ratings for Warren County - track the poverty rate of the schools and you’re likely to find a correlation. Correct. We need to look no further than this for explanation.
October 2, 20197 yr Author So what can be done about all this? We can highlight different things like metrics, poverty rate, public vs private schools, racial makeup, etc., but when the dust settles how can we improve the status/the learning environment for the underperforming students? I'm not naive enough to think we will get 100% of anything, but I find the significant number of schools underperforming to be unacceptable. My goal is not to blame anyone. I'm a solver in logistics and thinking. I have always felt JCPS has too many (600) adminastrators making over $100,000/year, when we don't have any teachers making near that much. An approach to try going forward would be to reduce the adminastrative staff by 10%. Yes, this would cause some initial problems, but I believe they can be accounted for. Take the 6 million dollars that this generates and invest it in the teachers working in the CSI schools. Give better teachers an incentive to work and change the lives of poorer performing students in poorer performing schools. This would be verified by test scores. If your students improve their test scores and pull themselves out of the CSI category, those teachers receive a substantial bonus/stipend or whatever. I know this isn't perfect. But if we only focus on making administrative changes, how has that worked for us in the past? I just don't feel that will be as effective as making a change with the most critical components of education - the teacher - student relationship. If teachers were more incentivised to help those student succeed, I feel the system would be better. We have to try something we aren't trying now or the results will be the same.
October 2, 20197 yr So what can be done about all this? We can highlight different things like metrics, poverty rate, public vs private schools, racial makeup, etc., but when the dust settles how can we improve the status/the learning environment for the underperforming students? I'm not naive enough to think we will get 100% of anything, but I find the significant number of schools underperforming to be unacceptable. My goal is not to blame anyone. I'm a solver in logistics and thinking. I have always felt JCPS has too many (600) adminastrators making over $100,000/year, when we don't have any teachers making near that much. An approach to try going forward would be to reduce the adminastrative staff by 10%. Yes, this would cause some initial problems, but I believe they can be accounted for. Take the 6 million dollars that this generates and invest it in the teachers working in the CSI schools. Give better teachers an incentive to work and change the lives of poorer performing students in poorer performing schools. This would be verified by test scores. If your students improve their test scores and pull themselves out of the CSI category, those teachers receive a substantial bonus/stipend or whatever. I know this isn't perfect. But if we only focus on making administrative changes, how has that worked for us in the past? I just don't feel that will be as effective as making a change with the most critical components of education - the teacher - student relationship. If teachers were more incentivised to help those student succeed, I feel the system would be better. We have to try something we aren't trying now or the results will be the same. I don't think there is any correlation whatsoever to Admin making six figures to schools under performing. This "fix" assumes the teachers in the CSI schools aren't working as hard because of their pay. In my experience, the teachers that are actually at those schools REALLY want to be there. Sure we could allocate some more money to make sure those schools have the same resources as higher performing schools, but cutting Admin and essentially saying to teachers "Work a little harder for more money" surely isn't the way to go, IMO.
October 2, 20197 yr Author I don't think there is any correlation whatsoever to Admin making six figures to schools under performing. This "fix" assumes the teachers in the CSI schools aren't working as hard because of their pay. In my experience, the teachers that are actually at those schools REALLY want to be there. Sure we could allocate some more money to make sure those schools have the same resources as higher performing schools, but cutting Admin and essentially saying to teachers "Work a little harder for more money" surely isn't the way to go, IMO. I think you have a right to your opinion. I'm not so much drawing a correlation as I am trying to make a real change. But to think that across the board the level of teachers is the same at a CSI school vs a school that is a 4 or 5 star school is not true. I'm not saying those CSI teachers are not trying and are not working hard. It's just like Coaches. Don't you think Jeremy Pruitt at Tennessee is trying. Sure he is. He just isn't a very good Head Coach. I think the same is true here. I'm also saying were as taxpayers are not getting what we should out of the $60 Million/year from the administration. When I review the information, that's what it says to me.
October 2, 20197 yr I think you have a right to your opinion. I'm not so much drawing a correlation as I am trying to make a real change. But to think that across the board the level of teachers is the same at a CSI school vs a school that is a 4 or 5 star school is not true. I'm not saying those CSI teachers are not trying and are not working hard. It's just like Coaches. Don't you think Jeremy Pruitt at Tennessee is trying. Sure he is. He just isn't a very good Head Coach. I think the same is true here. I'm also saying were as taxpayers are not getting what we should out of the $60 Million/year from the administration. When I review the information, that's what it says to me. I didn't say that. My point is perhaps the issue isn't "bad teachers," but rather the resources those teachers have in their schools. If you take a 5 star school and a 1 star school and complete swap the staffs, do you think the 1 star school miraculously becomes a 5 star? I definitely don't. It's not that simple. Let's work to get the resources the same in all schools, so that everyone is on a level playing field, and then we can really start to pinpoint what the issues are. What should we as taxpayers be getting out of Admin that we aren't? Again, IMO it's too simple to say "schools aren't performing, they shouldn't be making that much money." Just like in any profession, there are people that are absolutely deserving of their salaries and there are others that aren't. Painting with a broad brush and saying "let's get rid of x number of people that make over $100k" doesn't seem fair to me.
October 2, 20197 yr Author I didn't say that. My point is perhaps the issue isn't "bad teachers," but rather the resources those teachers have in their schools. If you take a 5 star school and a 1 star school and complete swap the staffs, do you think the 1 star school miraculously becomes a 5 star? I definitely don't. It's not that simple. Let's work to get the resources the same in all schools, so that everyone is on a level playing field, and then we can really start to pinpoint what the issues are. What should we as taxpayers be getting out of Admin that we aren't? Again, IMO it's too simple to say "schools aren't performing, they shouldn't be making that much money." Just like in any profession, there are people that are absolutely deserving of their salaries and there are others that aren't. Painting with a broad brush and saying "let's get rid of x number of people that make over $100k" doesn't seem fair to me. I think that scenario goes to 3 stars. My opinion. The taxpayers should be getting better than 60% of all schools below average. Don't you think that? You're getting hung up on the admin part. My only reason for cutting some of them is to gain dollars to make real changes so your tax bill and mine don't continue to go up (i.e. better use of resources). Even though it will do to property taxes going up for this. What resources are not equal? So you are saying JCPS is placing unequal resources across the district?
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.