My Goal in Blogging

I started this blog in May of 2008, shortly after my election to the School Committee, because I believed it was very important to both provide the community with an opportunity to share their thoughts with me about our schools and to provide me with an opportunity for me to ask questions and share my thoughts and reasoning. I have found the conversation generated on my blog to be extremely helpful to me in learning community views on many issues. I appreciate the many people who have taken the time to share their views. I believe it is critical to the quality of our public schools to have a public discussion of our community priorities, concerns and aspirations.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Report from the How Are We Doing Subcommittee

To: Maria Geryk, Regional School Committee
From: Members of the “How Are We Doing Subcommittee” (Elaine Brighty, Andy Churchill, Marianne Jorgensen, Catherine Sanderson)
Cc: Doug Slaughter
Re: Report
Date: June 8, 2009


The “How Are We Doing Subcommittee” met three times during 2008-2009 and focused on two goals: (1) developing a list of criteria for use as an “annual report” on our district over time and (2) developing a list of relevant comparison districts against which to compare our district’s performance according to the chosen criteria, where possible. This report provides updates on our work towards both of these goals.


Comparison Criteria

All members agreed on the importance of having a set of indicators that was not so large as to become impossible to gather, but also a range of indicators (e.g., not only indicators focused on the high school). After consideration of many potential indicators (and the pros and cons of each), we identified the following set of items on which to gather data on an annual basis.

Course offerings and requirements: requirements of the high school (number of years required of English, math, science, world language); number of world languages offered (elementary, MS, HS); number of music performance groups; number of fine arts courses offered; number of technology and computer courses offered; number of AP classes offered; instrumental music offered (elementary, MS).

Coursework completed: % of students graduating with four years of science, math, world language; % of students taking at least one honors class; % of students taking at least one AP class; % of students taking calculus; % of students taking algebra by 8th grade

Achievement: % of elementary school students reading at grade level and doing math at grade level; % of students proficient on MCAS in each subject (elementary, MS, HS); SAT I and SAT II mean scores; % with passing AP scores; number (%?) of National Merit scholars; number (%) of HS students with one or more D or F grades in a course in a given year; graduation rate; % of seniors attending college (4-year, 2-year, selective – as identified by the top 25 colleges/universities as ranked by US News and World Report); average daily attendance

Discipline data: number of expulsions, number of suspensions (internal, external), number of students with a single suspension in a given year, number of students with multiple suspensions in a given year

Satisfaction data: student, parents, staff/teacher surveys (annual)

Extracurricular activities: number of athletic teams (MS, HS).

The committee also expressed interest, whenever possible, in assessing these criteria in terms of student subgroups (race, ethnicity, gender, ELL, free/reduced lunch, special needs).


Comparison Districts

We wanted to develop a list of relevant comparison districts (districts that are similar, though not identical, to Amherst in terms of size, demographics, and aspirations). This work began with examining the MSAN districts. Although some of these districts differ from our district in many ways (size, urban/suburban/rural location, demographic make-up), these districts all have a common philosophy or goal on reducing the achievement gap. We also considered other Massachusetts districts that are ranked highly by objective measures (Newsweek’s list, US News and World Report list) to try to find other districts that are well-rated and similar in at least some ways to our own district. Finally, we considered other Western Massachusetts districts that are often used as comparisons.

Our District:

Amherst Elementary Schools: The elementary schools serve 1310 students in 4 elementary schools. This district includes 56% White, 14% Hispanic, 11% Asian, and 8% African American. This district is 27% low income.

Amherst Regional Schools: The regional schools serve 1786 students in one middle school (7-8) and one high school (9-12). This district includes 71% White, 10% Asian, 8% African American, and 8% Hispanic. This district is 16% low income.

Recommended Comparison Districts:

Brookline Public Schools, Brookline, MA (MSAN): The Brookline school system serves 6,081 students (in 8 K to 8 elementary schools and 1 high school). This district is 62% White, 18% Asian, 8.1% African American, 8.6% Hispanic. This district is 10% low income. This district has a similar percentage of students of color (African American and Hispanic). This district is somewhat larger and serves fewer low income students.

Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools, Chapel Hill, NC (MSAN): This district serves 11,316 students in 16 schools (9 elementary, 4 middle, 3 high schools). This district is 61.7% White, 18.8% Black, 5.4% Hispanic, 13.8% Asian. This district is 12.0% low income. This district is roughly similar to ours in terms of percentage of students of color (African American and Hispanic). This district is somewhat larger and serves fewer low income students.

Evanston, IL (MSAN) - this district is divided into an elementary and a regional:
Evanston/Skokie Elementary School District 65 (Grades K-8) - This district has 6,106 students in 10 elementary schools, 3 middle schools, 2 magnet schools. 42.4% white, 36.4% African American, 14.7% Hispanic, 5.4% Asian. This district is 41.2% low income.

Evanston Township High School - This school serves 3,041 students in one school. This school is 47% White, 37% Black, 10% Hispanic, 3% Asian, and 3% Multi-ethnic. 34% of the kids are low income. This district is larger than ours and more diverse in terms of percentage of students of color. This district is somewhat larger and serves more low income students.

Framingham, MA: This district serves 8,065 students in 9 elementary schools, 3 middle schools (5 to 8), and 1 high school. The district is 66.2% White, 6% Asian, 6.5% Black, and 20.2% Hispanic. This district serves 28.8% low income kids. This district is larger than Amherst and is more racially diverse. This district serves more low income students.

Longmeadow, MA: This district serves 3,157 students in 8 elementary schools, 2 middle schools, and 1 high school. The district is 90% White, 6% Asian, and 3% Black. This district serves 4% low income kids. This district is similar in size to Amherst, but is less diverse in terms of kids of color. This district serves very few low income students.

Montclair Public Schools, Montclair, NJ (MSAN): This district serves 6,650 students (in 7 elementary schools, 3 middle schools, and 1 high school). This district is 50% White, 39% Black, 7% Hispanic, 5% Asian. This district serves 18% low income kids. This district is somewhat larger in size than Amherst and is more diverse in terms of kids of color. This district serves a roughly similar proportion of low income students.

Newton, MA: This district serves 11,631 students (in 16 elementary schools, 4 middle schools, 2 high schools). This district includes 70.7% White, 13.6% Asian, 4.8% African American, and 6.5% Hispanic. This district serves 6.9% low income kids. This district is larger than Amherst and less racially diverse. This district serves fewer low income kids.

Northampton, MA: This district serves 2,793 students in 4 elementary schools, 1 middle school, and 1 high school. The district is 76% White, 5% Asian, 4% African American, and 12% Hispanic. This district serves 26% low income kids. This district is similar in size to Amherst and is roughly comparable in terms of low income students. This district is less diverse in terms of kids of color.

Oak Park, IL (MSAN) – this district is divided into an elementary and a regional:
Oak Park Elementary School District 97 (Grades K-8): This district serves 5,040 students in 2 middle schools and 8 elementary schools. The school composition is 57.1% white, 26.6% black, 3.7% Hispanic, 4% Asian, 8.4% multi-ethnic. This school serves 19.2% low income kids.
Oak Park and River Forest High School: This school serves 3,176 students in one high school. The school includes 61.8% white, 24% black, 4.8% Hispanic, 4% Asian, and 5.3% Multi-ethnic. This school serves 11.6% low income kids.
This district is somewhat larger in size than Amherst and is more diverse in terms of kids of color. This district serves fewer low income students.

Princeton Regional Schools, Princeton, NJ (MSAN): This district serves 3,100 in 4 elementary schools, 1 middle school, and 1 high school. This district is 70% White, 8% Black, 8.4% Hispanic, and 13.4% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 8.0% low income. This district is very similar in size and school composition to Amherst, and has a roughly similar percentage of students of color (Black and Hispanic). This district serves fewer low income students.

Shaker Heights City School District, Shaker Heights, OH (MSAN): This district serves about 5,600 in 8 schools (5 K to 4, 1 5 to 6, 1 7 to 8, 1 9 to 12). This district is 53% Black, 37% White, 5% Multi-racial, 4% Asian, and 1% Hispanic. 29% of the kids are low income. This district is somewhat larger in size than Amherst and is more diverse in terms of kids of color. This district serves more low income students.

White Plains Public Schools, White Plains NY: This district serves 7,173 students in 7 schools (5 K to 5, 2 6 to 8, 1 9 to 12). This district is 44% Hispanic, 33% White, 20% Black, and 3% Asian. 36% of the kids are low income. This district is somewhat larger in size than Amherst and is more diverse in terms of kids of color. This district serves more low income students.

6 comments:

Ed said...

Ideas and what does/doesn't work are valuable.

But in comparing schools to other schools, I am reminded of a bunch of drunken undergraduates at the end of a bar crawl. "I can drive" mumbles one, "no, I am more sober" the other and so forth -- to the point where the most sober of the group, but someone still quite intoxicated, attempts to drive home.

If you presume a bell curve and that there is a fine median of excellence and a distribution of it on both sides, standard deviations and the rest, *then* something like this makes sense.

It is like assuming an equal distribution of intoxication amongst the undergrads and that one of them is completely sober, with the mean, median & modal level of intoxication coming somewhere in the same place.

If all the schools are terrible, if K-12 is a vast wasteland needing another "wakeup" call like happened in 1958, then all you are doing is comparing yourself to other problematic schools.

It is like the undergrads -- But Ossifer, I only have a 3.9 BAC, everyone else has at least a 4.0...

Anonymous said...

This report in encouraging since it acknowledges, as many in town do not, that there is a world beyond Amherst -- and that our schools can be evaluated by looking at different key factors. If our children are constantly being evaluated why not our schools? Why not learn from other school systems?

I look forward to the work of this subcommittee and the discussion it will spark.

Catherine A. Sanderson said...

My responses:

Ed - well, there is some objective evidence (e.g., Newsweek, US News & World Report lists) that the districts we have chosen are in fact doing well ... so it is not as if we've chosen just a random set of districts. As a college professor (even at a really selective placed in which all students are clearly bright), I see first-hand that high school preparation differs dramatically, and I think we owe it to kids in our district that we know what other districts are doing so that we can offer our kids the best preparation for their lives BEYOND our high school. Thus, I think this type of comparison will be really valuable.

Anonymous 1:33 - indeed. I agree completely.

Naomi said...

Why shouldn't disabilities be considered one of the "key factors"? Did Newsweek and US News and World Report include disabled children in their "objective evidence" that the listed school districts are "doing well?" I guess if you take special education out of the bell curve then even Amherst must be doing well. Will this type of comparison be valuable to the children who struggle the most and who work the hardest and who never even get to a level playing field? Do we want to offer THESE kids "the best preparation for their lives BEYOND our high school?" Who on the SC represents THEM? If the SC really wants to provide equity and insure social justice for ALL children of ALL races, ethnicities and socio-economic status, then why do you continue to allow special education policy to be set by a small handful of administrators who meet behind closed doors? Do we need a separate SC for Special Education? A separate Superintendent? No group of students are discriminated against more than the disabled. Their omission in your choices of "key factors" is a testament to this. If you believe that Special Education has no place in SC business, then at least make it clear and be honest in your statements about how much you care about "ALL" students, and just add: "(excluding disabled ones)". Then at least your bias will be out in the open, which is slightly more palatable than insidious bias.

Anonymous said...

Naomi, I share your feelings. As a parent of a child who had to be removed from the Amherst school system, I know first hand of what you speak. But don't worry, attention always gets paid to the disabled child whenever people want to cut the budget. First place they look for reductions, under the guise of insuring that such students are provided the most efficient use of monies.

Maybe it's the old saying re. walking in one's shoes. I would like to think so.

Naomi said...

To Anon 6:50am,
Wow, thank you for your support. I wonder if there has ever been a SC member with a child in Special Education, besides Elaine Brighty. I don't think it would necessarily help us, because Elaine retreated from her promise to represent us under directives from Jere Hochman and Maria Geryk. Special Education is a very broad category, from mild hearing loss to paralysis from the neck down. From verbal impulsivity to physical rages. In our school system, administrative empathy for disabled students seems to decrease as the cost of the individual's educational needs increase. Amherst's "one-size-fits-all" approach, exemplified by programs like Brent Neilsen's Building Blocks and the East Street Alternative High School, is proof of this. Also, the out-of-district placements that Jeanne White, the sped administrator in charge of this option, recommends are very similar to Amherst's own substantially separate programs. The best placements for students who cannot progress in the Amherst district are more expensive. In order to get there, a family must hire a good Sped lawyer and maybe file a law suit. So, most of these kids end up at home with no chance at a high school diploma, even though there is a school out there that could educate them. Critics of my opinion may say that special needs kids are protected by state and federal laws. You and I know that a more naive statement has never been uttered.