|
|
| Post Number: 1081
|
Liberal 
Group: Moderator
Posts: 11451
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
 |
Posted on: Nov. 10 2007,11:15 am |
|
   |
How is it that other schools had no problem getting the kids to take it seriously?
Blaming the kids for not trying is as weak as blaming the immigrants, the poor and the handicapped for dragging our tests scores down.
--------------
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 1082
|
busybee
Group: Members
Posts: 2510
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 10 2007,12:16 pm |
|
 |
QUOTE More money > more promises > more of the same performance
I agree.
Here is how we allocated funds before this referendum issue came into play.
ALHS our WORST PROFICIENCY SCHOOL
General Fund Expenditure per Student by Program
School District State
District Level Administration $263 $263 $376
School Level Administration $377 $384 $369
Regular Instruction $3,195 $3,698 $3,963
Career & Technical Instruction $536 $177 $133
Special Education Instruction $1,337 $1,782 $1,632
Student Activities/Athletics $513 $171 $229
Instructional Support Services $354 $329 $405
Pupil Support Services $234 $176 $239
Operations, Maintenance & Other $1,245 $997 $769
Student Transportation $502 $502 $502
* Subtotal - General Fund Operating Expenditures
$8,556 $8,479 $8,617
Capital Expenditures $253 $283 $453
* Total - General Fund $8,809 $8,762 $9,070
General Fund Revenue per Student Generated By Students Attending This School
School District State
Basic General Education $6,098 $5,394 $5,379
Extended Time $0 $64 $63
Compensatory $190 $350 $349
Limited English Proficiency $11 $31 $46
Sparsity $0 $0 $23
Operating Capital $262 $234 $224
Operating Referendum $657 $588 $638
Other General Education $236 $211 $205
* Subtotal - General Education $7,453 $6,872 $6,927
Special Education $740 $1,024 $976
Title I $17 $119 $129
First Grade Preparedness $0 $0 $9
Other Operating $684 $672 $806
Other Capital Expenditure $57 $57 $226
* Total - General Fund $8,950 $8,744 $9,073
General Fund Revenue by Source
District State
Federal Grants $472 $464
State Aids and Grants $7,632 $7,546
Local Property Tax $300 $545
Student Fees/Admissions $55 $82
Tuition from other Districts $77 $124
Investment Earnings $79 $66
Other Local $130 $249
* TOTAL General Fund $8,745 $9,076
Compare to our BEST PROFICIENCY LEVEL School
Sibley
Compare to our HIGHEST # SPECIAL EDUCATION School
Halverson
Compare to our middle school
Southwest
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 1083
|
|
|
| Post Number: 1084
|
|
|
| Post Number: 1085
|
hairhertz
Group: Members
Posts: 3489
Joined: Dec. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 10 2007,12:47 pm |
|
|
1. finish regular school after 10th grade; begin college prep or go directly to college once the needed skill levels are effectively demonstrated. Allow students upwards of 3 years to attain skills/attend college.
2. finish regular school after 10th grade: begin vocation training the next year. Complete training once skills levels are effectively demonstrated. Allow training to age 21 at public expense.
--------------
metis movement
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 1086
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 10 2007,3:21 pm |
|
|
Busybee--what is your point in the post comparing expenditures above? There are so MANY issues that your post brings up that it is hard to focus on only one.
I see that the cost per student was HIGHEST in our WORST performing school.
I see that our BEST performing school had LOWER expenditures per student--so much for "More money equals better education."
I see that Sibley, an elementary school, had only 92% of the AVERAGE expenditures per student--thousands of dollars less. It appears that once again, elementary is short changed.
Could you elaborate on your point?
Several posters express frustration with LEARN, saying "how can we improve education by cutting funds?"
They have completely missed the point--that the issue is NOT "cutting funds"--it is about having the kinds of schools WE want, about adequate yearly progress, about PRIORITIES. There is money in the school budget for a number of "nice to have" issues, but the Administration CHOOSES to spend it on those issues instead of meeting the charge made to them to teach academics and meet standards.
Most LEARN members are not even against raising taxes--but we ARE against misplaced priorities, waste, and the seeming inability to define the goals that those increased taxes would pay for. LEARN is on record as saying that if the community (as opposed to the Administration) decides to keep an additional school open, so be it. They are also on record as saying--give us a million dollars worth of cuts, and we'll give you a million dollars MORE in levies."
By the way, those "cuts" are not a cut in BUDGET--a better definition of it would be REALLOCATION--the money would still be there--just change where it is spent.
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 1087
|
january
Group: Members
Posts: 265
Joined: Dec. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 10 2007,3:48 pm |
|
|
Stand 44
Liberal is right.
Many, many, many schools passed AYP.......the majority passed.
District 241 FAILED to make AYP as did three individual schools in District 241
77% NOT proficient in Math (11th grade)
45% NOT proficient in Reading (11th grade)
Is horrible.
Can one person from TEAM, Administration or School Board say that is acceptable?
Then WHY in heavens name was this not addressed when it was so public, when people actually listened? When something could have been done about it? When the public could have demanded change?
No, all the public got was more enabling of this, the WORST problem the District has.
All the public got was Board members saying how wonderful everything was and we need to keep the same quality of education that we now have.
We got Sally Erhardt, Board Member give explanation after explanation that she believed it was those "SUB-GROUPS" that caused us to fail AYP.
It was a teeny,weeny, tiny group of students (Special Ed and Hispanic) that are causing the low scores.
We had TEAM members explaining that we really did not do too terribly bad because the "all students" group passed.
We were told to go back and look at how it is calculated and then we can all be enligtened and see that it really is not what is being said by those people that are not in the know.
The referendum passed.
It was never about the money with me
It was about holding the District accountable for your children.
It was about having the publics ear, finally, because it was a hotbed issue and people didn't turn a deaf ear during the referendum campaign. They were engaged.
I know that some of the TEAM members still come on here to look at what is being said.
You can make a difference.
Our kids need you
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 1088
|
january
Group: Members
Posts: 265
Joined: Dec. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 10 2007,4:02 pm |
|
|
Stand 44,
You said that you still don't believe that 77% of Albert Lea's juniors do not have the skills to pass that test. You believe 77% didn't perform well enough to pass the test, but you don't think it is because they couldn't pass the test.
The objective data is the objective data.
77% didn't pass the test.
PERIOD
I guess that is why the Public, the States and the Feds are no longer accepting letter grades as a gauge as to how things are going academically for individual students and schools.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 1089
|
|
|
| Post Number: 1090
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 11 2007,10:40 am |
|
|
Thank you for verifying--that was my point as well, elementary is shortchanged to give assets to the high school.
Maybe if they spent that money in ELEMENTARY, they wouldn't have to do remedial work in high school.
From earlier in the thread, I listed a source where you can look up the student-teacher ratio.
It isn't that we are SHORT of money--it is the DISTRIBUTION of funds that is wrong.
That's a failure of CENTRAL PLANNING. Most governments in the world have adequate assets--but the distribution is where it goes bad. Look at Russia's "central planning"--whether potato crops, tractors produced, automobile allocations--not a good model. For a REAL example of defective "central planning", look at the UN--the people that can't manage to give away powdered milk. 
I'm glad you are keeping tabs on them! 
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
