So how does anything change? This is what it boils down to.

I'm asking for a different approach. Your asking for more resources. If it works I'm for your plan. "There's only so much that can be done to affect things outside of school" This tells me that the current way we do things outside of school need to be changed. Who is determining which schools get allocated which resources?

 

You already know they are doing a poor job here, as JCPS has no turf fields compared to Lex who basically all their schools have them. Still sure that 60 million is working properly?

 

How do you know they are doing a poor job? You are citing one metric and yet what about the personal growth metric? Or the home systems? Or the student apathy at an education that family could care less about? :idunno:

At the next flawed report? :lol2: Alright, I'll be here.

 

If having fewer Admin making six figures is your way to reallocate money, how do we select which Admin to cut?

 

Deuce, let's move on. We don't see it the same and that's ok.

Deuce, let's move on. We don't see it the same and that's ok.

 

Of course it's okay. I still would like to know how you see your plan to cut Admin plays out.

I am a life-long educator. My school received 4 stars but I caution anyone from reading too much into these scores. They literally change the system every few years so you really can’t compare from year to year. Also, some of the ways they rank certain areas would leave you scratching your head.

 

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.

 

When you add up questionable metrics, minority discrimination, a constant changing system, and rankings that make your scratch your head you can still have a system where heads roll (what you described in the 2nd post I quoted) however with so many variables it sounds more like guesswork than it does accountability.

You can't compare public scores to private scores. Very few, if any, private schools have special education concerns. They don't have busing problems. I mean, yeah. If I hand-picked the best basketball or baseball players within 50-miles of where I live, I would put up good numbers also. The same applies to education so throw out the public school v private school score comparison.

 

Compare the problems of Louisville to say a city the size of Shelbyville or Prospect. Infrastructure, solid waste, crime, etc. The problems are greater in Louisville because of size. The same thing applies to education. Look at the top scoring high schools and count how many of them are smaller schools.

You can't compare public scores to private scores. Very few, if any, private schools have special education concerns. They don't have busing problems. I mean, yeah. If I hand-picked the best basketball or baseball players within 50-miles of where I live, I would put up good numbers also. The same applies to education so throw out the public school v private school score comparison.

 

Compare the problems of Louisville to say a city the size of Shelbyville or Prospect. Infrastructure, solid waste, crime, etc. The problems are greater in Louisville because of size. The same thing applies to education. Look at the top scoring high schools and count how many of them are smaller schools.

 

I agree.

 

Maybe it has already been covered but the school system performance evaluations should take into account how many total students there are in a system and how many of those students use or don't use the public system. Once you have that percentage it should be figured into the matrix along with the average scores of private schools and the average scores of the public schools across the state to determine (and most likely boost) the overall grades of the individual public systems based on the percentage of students in a given system that don't use the public system.

Are the school systems under-performing or are the students and family systems? No matter the program if the latter is the real culprit there is only so much the former can do.

 

The student and family system is alot of it too. Years ago the media did a study and found the bottom performing schools had an insane percentage of students who have missed 20 or more days of school a year, when you figure in weekends, that is basically an entire month of school. There is really very little a school can do when students miss a month worth of school. I sometimes wonder if those students were taken out of the equation, how those schools would be doing? Probably much closer to average.

Schools should be located close to where the parents live so they can more easily interact with the school, teachers, etc. Many of the poor do not own cars, and Louisville's public transportation system is not the best, especially after business hours. I heard a minority grandmother once say, "I don't mind being poor but it so

("darn") inconvenient."

.

Does anyone hold the schools accountable for underperforming, or is it just noticed and ignored/hands thrown up in the air?

Does anyone hold the schools accountable for underperforming, or is it just noticed and ignored/hands thrown up in the air?

The state Department of Education is trying to hold the schools responsible. It has been met by - rightly or wrongly - considerable resistance by JCPS and the teachers.

Does anyone hold the schools accountable for underperforming, or is it just noticed and ignored/hands thrown up in the air?

I used to teach in a school that at one point was deemed underperforming. We received help in the form of “educational recovery specialists,” former educators that have been specially trained at the Kentucky Department on Education. They bring big changes to the school. They work with teachers and administrators. The principal can also be fired, though mine wasn’t.

 

Here is the interesting thing, where the metrics are screwed up. The year we were deemed to be underperforming was also the year that we had a Top 20 average ACT score amongst Kentucky public schools.

When you add up questionable metrics, minority discrimination, a constant changing system, and rankings that make your scratch your head you can still have a system where heads roll (what you described in the 2nd post I quoted) however with so many variables it sounds more like guesswork than it does accountability.

As someone who has been there, there certainly is accountability.

Hmmmmm.....got to question the existence of 600 highly compensated decision makers that can't find the solution. In business the targeted outcomes are what is expected and demanded. Poor performance more often than not simply results in a change in leadership.

Hmmmmm.....got to question the existence of 600 highly compensated decision makers that can't find the solution.

 

There is no one solution...

Hmmmmm.....got to question the existence of 600 highly compensated decision makers that can't find the solution. In business the targeted outcomes are what is expected and demanded. Poor performance more often than not simply results in a change in leadership.

 

But schools aren't comparable to a business.

 

Why?

 

Because a business can dismiss the producers of the product who aren't producing enough. (i.e. students passing standardized tests, GPA, graduations rates which are all based on the students performance)

 

Students can't be replaced with better students to see to it that the scores go up.

 

In business, you can fire the managers and the employees who fail to produce.

 

In schools, you can change management but not the employees (i.e. students) so he product production might change a little under new management but you will still have underachievers that can't be removed.

 

:thumb: