School Test Results Available Wednesday

Timeline of accountability results activities relating to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for 2007.

* On Wednesday Afternoon, 15Aug07: STAR Test Results

* 17Aug: A letter will be mailed to CUSD regarding the August 31, 2007 release of 2006-07 Accountability Progress Reporting (APR).

* On Friday Afternoon, 31Aug07: 2006-07 Accountability Progress Reporting (APR) - CUSD Summary . Will include: 2007 AYP, 2007 Growth API, 2007-08 PI Status

* Friday, 17Sep07: Appeals deadline for CUSD to appeal PI status for the District and Farallone View Elementary.

A friend suggested I add some ‘context’ to the above:

                                   MINIMUMS Targets  
                   English-Language Arts   Mathematics 
Cabrillo Unified            23.0 %            23.7 %

Elementary                  24.4 %            26.5 %

Cunha Intermediate          24.4 %            26.5 %

Half Moon Bay High          22.3 %            20.9 %

The definition of “%  Proficient and Above” is based on achieving 58% correct or better on the tests - IMHO, not exactly a demanding standard, a D- or better. This is on the material that the State of California REQUIRES all Districts to teach at each grade level.

To put it another way, if I had four children and only one of them had a report card where there was no grade below a D-  [58% correct on the test] I would consider myself a failure as a parent. Well, School Superintendent John Bayless has less success than that and he has the chutzpah to keep giving excuses instead of success.

Cunha, Hatch and the District have never met the standards!

Farallone View Elementary and Half Moon Bay High have never met this standard!

Superintendent John Bayless will blame his failure on ‘the NEW English Language Learners’ - BUT, the truth is that last year at Cunha Intermediate School that was SIX (6) students out of the 717 student enrolment!
Grades 2 through 8 had 11, less than two per grade, of ‘New’ ELL students throughout the District.

This is the last year of the six ‘easy’ standards years and the standards will start to increase rapidly.

I compared economic status, education, etc for my personal status and found significant difference in test scores between CUSD and schools I knew to be good.

Maybe that is a better way to look at it from an individual perspective is to see what, if any, is the ‘lost educational potential’ to determine the level of additional support that parents should provide their students in CUSD.

I am not suggesting that parents should join the more than 30% of parents who choose not to have their children in CUSD, but to evaluate supplemental resources for their children’s education.  I believe that public schools bring great value in providing the diversity of student population that they will encounter as adults in life and learn how to interact socially. The numbers should help guide parents and provide the public with a method of evaluating how effectively the schools are operated.

Ken Johnson

Hey Ken, thanks for posting this info! I was meaning to ask about the results but when I logged on… you’d already answered my question. :)

We moved here because we don’t have kids, which means we can afford not to live in a school district like Saratoga or Cupertino. I understand this problem isn’t likely to improve so long as concerned parents here on the coast continue to send their kids out of district, but on the other hand… if it were my kid’s education at stake, I’d probably do the same. How sad for the kids whose parents don’t have that option.

Hi Maureen,

Glad to be of assistance and I do understand your sentiments. 

You might want to consider thou that it does involve more than those who have children attending CUSD. How often have you seen a real estate ad stating: “failing school within walking distance”?

Ken Johnson

Hi Ken,

I absolutely agree that a poor (or outright crappy) school district affects the community as a whole, not just parents and their children. There are financial factors, such as real estate values. But (imo) there is an even more important issue - community concern and pride in taking care of its residents, most definitely including its children.

The question is: where to start? The parents most likely to be involved and vocal about school standards are often the ones who’ve given up and sent their kids elsewhere. Those of us who don’t have kids, or whose kids are grown, aren’t generally included in schooling issues, with the exception of voting. And I have to say that even at the best of times, the coastside strikes me as somewhat… fractious.

So where would you start?

Hi Maureen,
I believe that the only thing that will get through to our School Board is bodies at their meetings. I chose the word “their” intentionally. A majority of the board don’t feel that the public is an integral part of their process.

You are correct about those who have kids outside of the school district because they are involved, rightly, with their children’s current school. Those with children in the district often privately express a concern with expressing their opinions for fear of retribution.

The most pressing issue is the selection of the next school Superintendent. He / she must be a turn around specialist.

With the California Department of Education just releasing to the public that: Cabrillo Unified School District, Hatch, Farallone View, and Cunha were all designated failing, the challenge will be great. I found only two School Districts in the County designated as failing - CUSD and East Palo Alto! 

The only thing that raised the attendance count above two members of the public not on the agenda was the question of relocating the location of the new middle school from Wavecrest to the current Cunha site.  To clarify, the two members of the public being me and the MCTV camera person. And I am envious of ‘General Custer at Little Big Horn’. There are a lot of Indians there that believe everything is just fine the way it is. They don’t want to hear reality. They don’t want to hear suggestions. They don’t want to hear from the public except to praise them. If anyone is up to a challenge, this is it!

I am open to suggestions in motivating people to attend.  It was much easier to get people to start attending City Council meetings as they could see the direct connection to their property. As far as I can tell, only one, sometimes two, members of the five member board actually bother to read their ‘packets’ for items they are voting on. It is sad and not really getting better.

Ken Johnson

Hi Ken,

Can you explain what you mean when you emphasize “new” in new English language learners as NOT being the problem with the failing test scores?

I looked at Farallone View and it you look at the “White” vs. “Hispanic” you get scores that are decent vs scores that are just terrible. The same when you compare by income disadvantaged/non-disadvantaged and again compare by English-speaking vs learners. In each comparison it is about 200 students to 100 students, so I’m guessing the Hispanic/disadvantaged/learner group is all the same group for the most part.

That matches my anecdotal observations at the school as well.

So it certainly *seems* to me that the scores are misleading and that the problem with the scores is that they are mixing in a group that is doing o.k. with a group that is scoring very, very low.

But I don’t pretend to be an expert in this and would appreciate a better understanding of your point of view.

-Darin

Darin,

What you are observing has been the pattern in CUSD schools for the past several years. Whenever you look at standardized test scores, you always have to keep in mind who created the test (just look at the geniuses behind “no child left behind”), what the test covers, what it actually tests for other than the obvious (the answers to the questions on the test), and just who does and does not do well on the test. All over the state, and this is certainly true also of the several exams given for decades to evaluate students applying to colleges, overall averages for particular districts and schools do not represent distinct subpopulations in those same districts and schools.

But even accepting the tests, contrived as they are, as loosely indicative of student capabilities and progress in several important academic areas, the breakdown you note shows it is *possible* for students educated in the CUSD to succeed on the tests.

Some of the local English learners are fish out of water, with big cultural and language disadvantages to doing as well on any particular test in English as kids growing up with encouraging English-speaking parents in relatively affluent homes. Then, as far as Farralone View is concerned, the district buses many kids with the biggest hurdles to overcome in order to do well on inflexible tests nine miles out of their home community and to a place where their working parents will have a very difficult time taking part in conferences with educators, parent activities, and school events.

It should be obvious that the challenges in CUSD go far beyond doing better on tests. People with kids in elementary school who base their whole world view on how well their district is doing on standardized tests should move to Cupertino.

Carl May

Hi Darin,

“New” in new English language learners: the State defines as less than 12 months in U.S. schools. In CUSD that represents 01% of enrolment. At Farallone View that was 2 students out of 300 tested. It is statistically an insignificant number in CUSD to explain the poor results - that fact has not stopped the District in claiming it as an excuse in the past!

Children are ‘hard wired’ for language acquisition. Those who have not spent their entire academic life in CUSD are all but a statistically insignificant percentage. Testing begins in 2nd grade.

Regarding Farallone View  it is generally correct, although not precisely, to state the relationship between English Learner (ELL) and Disadvantaged (SED). It is also intuitively correct to assume a relationship between the student’s parent language proficiency and income.

As a non-intuitive reality, I was talking to a child’s grandmother over the weekend who was walking her preschool age grandson. She spoke essentially no English as was somewhat true of her grandson while with the grandmother - it depends on who spends the most time with the child during the day - the parents are limited bi-lingual. Hence, the importance of pre-school.  By second grade, he should be fluent English within a decent school effort and be fully bi-lingual. In CUSD, he has roughly a 54-46 shot at it. At Farallone View, there were four (4) students reclassified fluent English proficient!

At Farallone View, Mean Scale Scores are below potential values for all groups as reported in STAR results: by roughly 50 points at the high level and 125 at the low end.

IMHO, CUSD’s problem is low expectations lead to low results.  ELL program should start with ENGLISH Immersion!

Does that address your question Darin? If not, please re-state.

Ken Johnson

Hey Ken,

If I’m reading your post correctly you seem to be saying that all but two of the students at Farallone View can read/write English well enough so that it becomes unimportant as a factor in their test scores.

I don’t see it the same way. I have two kids at Farallone View and am active, taking kids on field trips, etc. I meet plenty of Hispanic kids at Farallone View and have spent time with them in conversation. I would say that almost all have some degree of language difficulty, many have a very serious language barrier.

It sounds like the standard for who is fluent and who is not is a very low one and may be misleading people to think that language isn’t an issue. I think it is!

—Darin

Interestingly, I noticed the following for Farallone View, the “vaunted” elementary on the upper north coastside…:granted it’s the only one, but technically speaking it’s the best… Anyways…. you can sort on a number of criteria including economic background:

Non-economically disadvantaged
ENGLISH MEANS (grades 2-5 below) -
377.6 365.0 373.5 381.6

MATH MEANS (grades 2-5 below) -
420.0 415.3 408.1 401.6

Economically challenged (by the way, 20-25 students in each grade in the sample pool)

ENGLISH MEANS (grades 2-5 below) -
294.0 298.1 328.5 319.5

MATH MEANS (grades 2-5 below) -
315.2 335.3 351.5 333.3

Some of the “vautned” districts in the County, are cause for higher localized prices in real estate with the schools always cited a chief reason. I took the great San Carlos Elementary… as I often hear about it, overall (non and challenged):

ENLGISH
386.3 363.9 396.2 374.7

MATH
415.9 400.0 398.9 398.6

Unless I’ve misinterpreted the data, it’s quite compelling.

Also, looked at the pool size of disadvantaged students in San Carlos, and it was 30-50 per grade for the ENTIRE DISTRICT ...8 schools. Didn’t break each one down, but averaged out that is 4-6 per grade… vs 20-25 at Farallone View. Conversely, the San Carlos ‘disadvantaged’  scores were up there with the ‘non-disadvantaged’. Me thinks having a much lower population of this sub-group allows for better-ratios on tutors, teacher band width, ESL program ratio, etc… just more overall resources and services for the “disadvantaged” there.

Meanwhile back on the coast, some may argue that the non-economically challenged are seeing a “San Carlos” quality education…since test scores seem to be the benchmark for additional real estate assessments.

Hi Darin,

Actually, we are in general agreement. The CDE Report, I and you agree that, in your words: “almost all [English Language Learner, ELL] have some degree of language difficulty”; “sounds like the standard for who is fluent…is a very low one” and that language [learning] is an issue.

You observation at the school is correct. Your conclusion that the standard is low is correct.

Whether your ‘Reading’ of my post is incorrect or I didn’t sufficient explain it is inconsequential to me in a friendly conversation.

Regards,
Ken Johnson

Kevin E. Barron,

I am pleased that someone is actually looking at the numbers. San Carlos Elementary District would not be my personal choice for comparisons but that is ok. As I recall, it was an item for comparison by those who pushed one of the prior Parcel Tax measures. So the reader can judge the difference.

The most obvious problem, with the numbers you used, was not to compare similar characteristics. I just pulled out the following while watching the news which might be helpful.

Total Number Tested:  
2,152    San Carlos Elementary District     
  300    Farallone View Elementary School  

 Mean Scale Scores:
  2nd      3rd       4th       5th     GRADE LEVEL

            ALL STUDENTS
English-Language Arts
385.1     363.7     395.1     376.3     San Carlos Elementary District         
350.8     337.9     359.1     363.3     Farallone View Elementary School  
Mathematics
414.3     399.5     398.4     402.5     San Carlos Elementary District     
386.0     382.9     390.0     381.5     Farallone View Elementary School  

        NOT ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
English-Language Arts
386.3     363.9     396.2     374.7     San Carlos Elementary District     
377.6     365.0     373.5     381.6     Farallone View Elementary School  
Mathematics
415.9     400.0     398.9     398.6    San Carlos Elementary District     
420.0     415.3     408.1     401.6     Farallone View Elementary School  

             ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
English-Language Arts
380.4     362.6     382.9     384.1    San Carlos Elementary District     
294.0     298.1     328.5     319.5     Farallone View Elementary School  
Mathematics
408.4     396.6     393.4     429.6    San Carlos Elementary District     
315.2     335.3     351.5     333.3     Farallone View Elementary School  

        PARENT EDUCATION - GRADUATE SCHOOL/POST GRADUATE
English-Language Arts
392.5     388.2     412.3     392.7    San Carlos Elementary District     
404.4     376.3     388.0     395.3     Farallone View Elementary School  
Mathematics
426.1     421.5     413.3     420.0     San Carlos Elementary District     
446.9     448.7     425.9     424.9     Farallone View Elementary School  

                 GIFTED AND TALENTED
English-Language Arts
                    454.0     430.2    San Carlos Elementary District  (4.5%)
                    421.1       *     Farallone View Elementary School  (8%)
 Mathematics
                    486.0     473.8     San Carlos Elementary District  
                    478.8       *     Farallone View Elementary School  

Ken Johnson

Ken,

What you show when attempting to compare oranges to oranges is, I repeat, that it is possible for students at Farralone View to do OK on the standardized tests in comparison to other districts. You also show that averages for entire districts do not represent all subpopulations within the districts. Some subpopulations in CUSD are being served just fine in rough comparison to the same subpopulations in “non-failing” districts if the criterion is performance on the standardized tests.

So now it starts to get closer to the nitty-gritty as far as where resources will need to be put, the subpopulations that will need attention sticking with current educational approaches, and changes that may need to be made if one wishes to boost overall average district scores in CUSD.

Personally, I see no reason to get too upset about our overall district averages on standardized tests. But for those who believe such averages are the ultimate measure of something or other, CUSD has basically two choices: shove a lot more effort/money into the current approaches to education of the distinct subpopulations (the poor and the English-deficient, which, we must recognize in our specific situation, are pretty much the same subpopulation) now dragging the district averages down or change the educational approach to one that attempts to improve the test performance of the subpopulations without spending a lot of additional time and money on them beyond what is already being spent. A version of this latter approach, a change in educational approach, is what I believe Ken advocates with his early English immersion stance. And some version of a changed approach is, upon reflection, what seems to be the mandate given the state funding formulas (the underlying and fundamental problem with funding for most school districts in California) and the unwillingness of local property owners to be taxed even more (targeted parcel taxes being essentially the only kind of local taxes that can be retained locally and directed to the school district).

Carl May

fyi,

I put a few charts up on my site concerning per-pupil spending in education. You can almost guess the results without looking—two of the charts are straight from the data, the third is using a crude but common sense methodology of my own.

I have Cabrillo vs other districts in the county, California vs other states, and California vs other states adjusted for cost-of-living.

Currently the third article…

http://www.montarafog.com

—Darin

I don’t feel like trying to track down a reference, but I distinctly remember a news report or something indicating that there is little to no correlation between per-student spending and achievement level.  If anyone has solid references to the contrary, feel free to post them.  One hint that there is no correlation is Carl’s comment that some subpopulations in CUSD do just fine.

Wasn’t there a California initiative passed in the late 1990s prohibiting long-term instruction in languages other than English?  I seem to recall CUSD stating back then that they were going to ignore that initiative.  I understand the argument for teaching kids in their native language while they’re learning English.  I just don’t agree with it at all.

Carl,

As to what, in your words, are “OK” or acceptable is a matter of personal choice. I never understood why the supporters of a prior Parcel Tax Measure kept referencing San Carlos Elementary District other than San Carlos had passed a Parcel Tax. I wrote above that “San Carlos Elementary District would not be my personal choice for comparisons”.

“a change in educational approach, is what I believe Ken advocates” - affirmative!
The Coastside has the least effective English Language Learner program in the county. Each year CUSD presents a plan that the same old approach will work - each year it fails!

Ken Johnson

Darin,

For those who may have had trouble displaying your charts, I extracted from your script your intended targets because the charts are useful to the discussion.

Darin’s charts can be accessed:
Chart 1

Chart 2

Chart 3

Chart 1 appears missing a couple of LEAs and numbers a tadge off, I prefer to use California Department of Education data directly, but sufficient for purpose:

CUSD - [6th from left on your chart; or aprox median within California ] - approximately $8,000 per student

East Palo Alto or Ravenswood City Elementary [5th from right on your chart]- approximately $12,000 / student

If your argument that funding is a significant predictor of performance, then East Palo Alto would be achieving toward the top!
Yet both East Palo Alto and CUSD are the only failing school districts in San Mateo County and ALL LEAs are more effective than CUSD in ELL instruction! It does point out the fallacy that funding is the relevant indicator of performance!

I suggest effectiveness of expenditures; quality of leadership of management and School Board; honesty and competence are far more important. You could give CUSD the funding of the highest school district and it would still be a failing district!

Chart 3 - Darin, please see Rand discussion in footnotes for the problem within your chart.
California’s K-12 Public Schools - How Are They Doing?

In short, as DOL, Department of Labour, no longer provides numbers due to Bush budget cut, for COL calculation, Education Lobby calculation was used that has a ‘bias’.

As it is irrelevant to how CUSD is doing or to what can be done about it, I’ll cut further comment.

Ken Johnson

Leonard,

I think my previous comment using Darin’s charts should make clear the lack of correlation between funding and academic performance.

As to your question, CUSD has been operating on a ‘waver’ from CDE. With CUSD designated by CDE officially as a failing district, there now exists the opportunity to use state resources to make a number of changes.

It is somewhat entertaining to listen to them praise the Spanish Immersion Program to teach a foreign language, Spanish, to English speaking students. Yet, when it comes to teaching a foreign language, English, to Spanish speaking students they don’t see the parallel. Maybe you have to obtain a Doctorate in Education rather than a more demanding academic discipline for that to make sense!

With Superintendent John Bayless, Ed.D. abandoning the Titanic he helped create, there exists a vague opportunity to see competency in CUSD. It is not encouraging to see the School Board seeking “someone just like Superintendent Bayless” and they are seeking our new Superintendent in the most secret process I have found in examining other recent California District’s processes.

As a passing thought, does anyone else think it ‘curious’ that “White” English Language Learners in CUSD acquire English rapidly but Latinos in CUSD don’t seem to acquire English? I spent enough time in the deep south to appreciate the old saying: ‘if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck; it just might be a duck’!

Where are the people that were talking about a recall two years ago when the School Board first voted to refuse to designate Cunha as the middle school building site? 

Maybe, when CUSD employees start their reading with LEA Program Improvement Requirements and
NCLB Program Improvement School Requirements CUSD employees may realize their paychecks just might be at stake, then they may become more concerned.

Ken Johnson

Ken says the idea that “funding is the relevant indicator of performance” is a “fallacy” while Leonard wonders aloud whether he saw a study that shows no correlation between performance and funding. Ken then suggested that I look at the RAND study (linked above) for more info.

I saw nothing in the RAND report that establishes a lack of correlation between spending and performance. Just the opposite in fact.

The RAND study and its results were far more damning than my “first approximation” charts—and seemed to point to low levels of funding compared to other states and low levels of funding effort (funding capability) compared to other states as major factors. They did point out that such comparisons might be misleading for a number of reasons, one of which is that each state might have different needs and thus require different funding levels—but I think they were suggesting that California—given the immigration and crime problems that it faces,might need *more* money than average just to attain parity.

It gets complicated the deeper you dig (partly because of the low quality of statistical data, as cited in the report) but the big surprises for many parents will be

  —California ranks last or near last in spending per student
  —California funds schools well under its capability
  —California students rank last or near last on measures of performance

—Darin

>>I saw nothing in the RAND report that establishes a lack of correlation between spending and performance. Just the opposite in fact.<<

I can only write twisty, turny sentences like this when I really, really try.

To rephrase it: “Hey Ken, which footnote were you referring to? It’s a 258 page document!

—Darin

Darin,

Take a breath. If you look, you will see that you are looking at ‘a side bar’ discussion for Chart 3. Chart 3 is irrelevant to a discussion of how CUSD is doing. I included the comment on Chart 3 as a courtesy - or that was my intention. It is only relevant if you have the power to change State and Federal funding.

Your chart #! shows 5 school districts with less funding that are succeeding precisely where CUSD is failing even tho they have greater demographic challenges than CUSD!

Again, funding does not explain CUSD failures!

Ken Johnson

Hey Ken,

I didn’t realize I was holding my breath…

My charts don’t prove any sort of correlation simply because they are “first approximations”—they are intended to be a sort of back-of-the envelope sort of thing.

But pointing to higher funded districts which are not failing is a little misleading. Without digging deeper there might be an obvious reason why East Palo Alto has a high ranking—as an example of what I mean you may have seen the post of TalkAbout that pointed out that Washington DC has a very high per-pupil spending level—but the original poster did not realize that DC, not being part of a state, has to pay for all sorts of things that are normally paid for by the state.

Another way of saying the same thing is to point out that high-spending districts (such as Hillsborough) also have very high scores (as a counter to your East Palo Alto example). So maybe there is a correlation!

So my point—hopefully stated more clearly this time—is that the claim that there is no correlation between achievement and spending is, as far as this discussion goes, unproven. In my opinion, stating that there is no correlation is a dubious premise—it goes counter to my experience in living in different school districts, common-sense, and the RAND report you cited above. So I think the burden of proof is on you (and maybe Leonard).

Note that I agree that there are other issues that Cabrillo faces, including the English-learner issues you mention. But I disagree (so far) that funding is a no-issue.

Now I *will* hold my breath—awaiting your response!  :)

—Darin

Darin,

With due respect for the good time you have spent going to the statistics, I believe there are both broader and deeper reasons for California’s educational problems than the educational establishment, politicians, parents, and citizens in general are willing to admit. Your basic points concluding your message (a couple of messages above this one) are all made with overall averages. But we have already pretty much established that some subpopulations of students in the current system are doing okay on the standardized tests at current spending levels, so the overall averages do a poor job of representing actual students and funding needs.

There are school districts in San Mateo County with essentially the same spending per student as in Cabrillo that are doing much better on the tests than Cabrillo. (I just sold a house in one of them, Burlingame, for a good price partially because the buyer wanted to get her kids out of San Francisco and into the Burlingame Elementary district.)

It’s just too easy to blame educational problems here entirely on lack of funding. And it’s too easy to say differences on tests are due to funding. Quite obviously, family income, native language, educational level attained by parents, educational methods employed, etc., come into play. And *how* funds for education are distributed by our state is a biggie.

One reason those overall averages look so bad is the essentially unlimited population growth in our state, creating an ever-growing student population supported by a relatively finite tax base. Then, when you consider the biggest component of population growth is in the subpopulations that are doing the worst on the tests, you have a situation that can only get worse without systemic educational changes that address the actual problems and their causes. Throwing money at the whole complex educational mess without making fundamental changes in what the money is spent on is a very uncertain, dubious approach.

So, what I want to know before I’m willing to back spending an additional dime in Cabrillo—for example, by voting for a disgusting parcel tax because such a tax is the only method available that would keep the money raised in the district—is what can be done with existing money to address the specific problems of CUSD and what would be done with additional money to address those problems. More money for more of the same is obviously not the answer.

Carl May

Hey Carl,

I think we are largely in agreement.

You said: “Your basic points concluding your message ...are all made with overall averages. But we have already pretty much established that some subpopulations of students in the current system are doing okay ...so the overall averages do a poor job of representing actual students and funding needs.”

Agreed. We clearly have two distinct groups in our elementary schools (you can even observe this on the playground). I also wonder how much drag there is on the “okay” students, if any.

You said: “There are school districts in San Mateo County with essentially the same spending per student as in Cabrillo that are doing much better on the tests than Cabrillo.”

Yes, indeed. Districts like Burlingame don’t face the same problems that we do. Our district has a major English learner issue that I don’t think Burlingame faces to the same degree. I suspect that Cabrillo would need more money than Burlingame and a different strategy…

You said: “It’s just too easy to blame educational problems here entirely on lack of funding….Quite obviously, family income, native language, educational level attained by parents, educational methods employed, etc., come into play. And *how* funds for education are distributed by our state is a biggie.”

All very true, as far as I see it. These are all factors—but, still, money *is* an important factor among these and one that we have some control over.

You said: “One reason those overall averages look so bad is the essentially unlimited population growth in our state…supported by a relatively finite tax base. Then, when you consider the biggest component of population growth is in the subpopulations that are doing the worst on the tests, you have a situation that can only get worse without systemic educational changes that address the actual problems and their causes. Throwing money at the whole complex educational mess without making fundamental changes in what the money is spent on is a very uncertain, dubious approach.”

Agree again. The main problem is in the subgroup and I’ve not seen a real plan to deal with it. More money per se is not the answer but the wiser spending of what we have coupled with more money when the voters have confidence that new funds will be spent wisely.

You said: “So, what I want to know before I’m willing to back spending an additional dime in Cabrillo…what can be done with existing money to address the specific problems of CUSD and what would be done with additional money to address those problems. More money for more of the same is obviously not the answer.”

Yes, indeed.

So you would, under certain conditions, be willing to vote for a parcel tax, is that right? It would be interesting to try and craft the language…

—Darin

Well, Darin, the last time around I didn’t vote against the parcel tax the way I did all the previous times. With the middle school at Wavecrest no longer demonstrating fiscal irresponsibility on the part of the CUSD board, I decided to back off and let others decide. So, I didn’t vote for it, either. I can’t imagine wording that would overcome the many qualms hereabouts, and I think voters in the CUSD are truly weary of having a parcel tax shoved at them time and again. It is difficult for those of us outside the educational community to see the connection between a parcel tax and improvement in the schools. And being harrangued by the emotional pro-tax crowd when the “selling points” for the previous proposals were so weak only made many of us more resistant.

When a parcel tax failed a time or two in Burlingame, the pro-tax crowd studied the reasons people voted against it and rewrote the tax to overcome the objections. And it then passed. Locally, they kept shoving essentially the same proposal at the voters time and again—hoping to browbeat voters into submission, I suppose. With the arrogance of past school boards and the irritating sense of entitlement many parents have regarding the use of other people’s money to educate their children, another tax go-around in the near future would probably cause mass indigestion.

Carl May

Darin,

Darin Boville Posted: 24 September 2007 06:03 PM     [ # 22 ]  ]

“But pointing to higher funded districts which are not failing is a little misleading. “

I wrote immediately above your post:

“Your chart #! shows 5 school districts with less funding that are succeeding precisely where CUSD is failing even tho they have greater demographic challenges than CUSD!

Again, funding does not explain CUSD failures! “

Now Darin, AGAIN, look at YOUR
Chart 1

To prove your point, that funding IS THE indicator, you must show that NONE of those five are a relevant comparison.

To prove my point, that: “Again, funding does not explain CUSD failures! “, all I must show is that any one of those five are a relevant comparison! I can and have done so for several years.

I check my data BEFORE making a claim. You are advocating a position which confounds logic to even the casual observer -

By definition:
CUSD is a failing district; NONE of the five with fewer dollars per student in YOUR chart are failing!

“Again, funding does not explain CUSD failures! “

Ken Johnson Posted: 23 September 2007 01:41 PM     [ # 17 ] 

“I suggest effectiveness of expenditures; quality of leadership of management and School Board; honesty and competence are far more important. You could give CUSD the funding of the highest school district and it would still be a failing district!”

Regards,
Ken Johnson

Carl,

Thanks for your contributions. Your personal experience with Burlingame is quite meaningful to the discussion!

Darin’s reply was interesting:
Darin Boville Posted: 24 September 2007 11:18 PM     [ # 24 ] 

Yes, indeed. Districts like Burlingame don’t face the same problems that we do.

CUSD # of ELL by Language

Burlingame # of ELL by Language

Looking at these two charts, I would conclude that Burlingame has a much more difficult task to teaching students in 33 native languages where most don’t even have a common character set to English: Cantonese =  9.2%; Mandarin (Putonghua) =  8.2%; Japanese = 7.7%; etc.

CUSD has students from 12 languages where 97.2% speak Spanish - doesn’t specialization in teaching English to Spanish speakers give CUSD an ‘economies of scale’ advantage?

Looks like CUSD has a much easier task; but fails:

            English-Language Arts
English Learners     %  Proficient 
CUSD                   19.9%
Burlingame             59.6%

Ken Johnson

Darin,

You wrote:
Darin Boville Posted: 24 September 2007 11:18 PM     [ # 24 ] 

So you would, under certain conditions, be willing to vote for a parcel tax, is that right? It would be interesting to try and craft the language

Been there - Done that! The School Board rejected the idea summarily, with the exception of Mr. John Mosley!

Why? It required CUSD to be accountable; to report to the public precisely and no more than what every other special district and HMB City does! Every other School District in the State I looked at also reports expenditures to the public - NOT CUSD! Look at the agendas for “Expenditure Report”.

They also apparently didn’t like the idea that parents and the public would have some input into the process. Also, it would direct some funding to those who were - OMG – failing!

Heresy! Heretic! The Earth couldn’t possibly revolve around the Sun! That was my reward from the School Board and CUSD administration.

The conundrum: if you present something the School Board and CUSD like; the public will reject it! If you present something the public will support; the School Board and CUSD will reject it!

So, good luck on that Darin!

Ken Johnson

Ken,

I didn’t mean to make a direct comparison between Burlingame Elementary and CUSD. I was merely commenting on the wiser political approach of those wishing to pass a specific parcel tax there. Though the gross funding is at roughly the same level per student (shouldn’t it be more in Burlingame where cost of living is somewhat higher), there are numerous cultural differences between the overall mixes of people in the two jurisdictions and differences in the geographic and organizational makeups of the districts.

But, yes, my late mother’s house in the pricy Easton Addition sold to a single Vietnamese woman (a contractor, of all things) who, among other things, wanted to get her small chiildren out of San Francisco and into the Burlingame school district. When I was a kid, Newsweek once called the town “lily-white Burlingame” because of the freezeout of anyone but Caucasians by the real estate industry. It’s a different town these days in terms of ethnicity and “country of origin.”

Carl May

Update on Farallone View.

I just read a note sent home with my kids—Farallone View is no longer in “program improvement.” It seems to be some sort of technicality—they didn’t get Title I funds last year so therefore aren’t subject to punishment…

Which, of course, raises the question: Are they getting all the money for the school that they can? (Sorry, can’t win either way…)

—Darin

Any explanation for why Title I funds were not received? What made them lose eligibility?

Darin,

As of the 31Oct07 update, Farallone View Elementary: “PI Status:  In PI - Year 1” according to California Department of Education.

Your “video, shot on October 2nd at out local PTA meeting” is a valuable public service.

I didn’t want to comment, although I listened to your video a month ago on your site and noted a number of additional apparent discrepancies by your new Principal; I wanted to wait till after the California Department of Education update.

The tape refers to the STAR results should be viewed like a ‘bell shaped curve’ which would be fine for a Norm Reference Test, NRT, unfortunately the STAR tests are NOT NRT. STAR results are reported as ‘scaled results’.

The differences are actually easily understood: NRT tests can never have 100% of the people in the upper score pattern, e.g. “above proficient”. Scaled result reporting can have 100% “above proficient”. The State expects and the tests are written and scored with the expectation that schools and Districts should have 100% “At or Above Proficient”.

“Proficient” is 58% correct or higher on the State required material on the STAR tests - I would characterize that as a D- or better!

The best elementary schools in the county are reporting Schoolwide “Percent At or Above Proficient” in the mid and high 90s%.

More disturbing is the discussion of the T1 funding.

Principal Catherine Werdel said:
‘Farallone View received such funds in the 2005-06 school year, but had too few free or reduced lunch recipients to qualify this year’.

Selected School Level Data FARALLONE VIEW ELEMENTARY for the year 2005-06

Selected School Level Data FARALLONE VIEW ELEMENTARY for the year 2006-07

Please note that there was an INCREASE in the relevant number of students between 2005-06 and 2006-07.

This represents my expressed concern during the last Parcel Tax Measure, that CUSD would use our taxes to forgo Federal Title 1 funds to avoid being held accountable for not providing an education to all of our students!

Ken Johnson

The State had the Final word:
Farallone View Elementary IS Failing: “PI Status:  In PI - Year 1” according to California Department of Education reported on 14Febo8.

“The California Department of Education (CDE) will only accept appeals from LEAs or schools whose AYP status changed as a result of this latest update. The CDE will not accept appeals of AYP status on the grounds of calculation or data errors.”

There were no changes. Sounds final to me!
The Review’s old story Farallone View appeals ‘improvement’ status citing lack of federal funding not withstanding.

Maureen Anderson asked above:
Any explanation for why Title I funds were not received? What made them lose eligibility?

I couldn’t understand CUSD claims that Farallone View Elementary didn’t receive Federal T1 funding last year. I can easily find schools in the county receiving Federal T1 funding for their disadvantaged with as little as 15% disadvantaged,

In year 2004-05, as a TAS, with 27.8% SED, Farallone View Elementary received Title I funds for the following group of disadvantaged students - note the mix of students - 20% Students with Disabilities!.  SED performance improved from 10.3%  to 19.3% making it.

Farallone View Elementary received Federal T1 funding in year 2005-06 with 32.8% SED; yet when
Farallone View Elementary SED enrolment increased to 36.3% last year, it wasn’t eligible to receive Federal T1 Funding?

I checked Federal and State for relevant law changes - nope! So how is it possible this essential Federal money to assist the Socio-Economically Disadvantaged, SED, was denied to Farallone View Elementary?

Well, I got some answers at the CUSD Board meeting on Thursday, 14 Feb 08, before I was cut off from asking questions of staff on Item #12. ACTION ITEMS b. “Approve legally required revisions to Board Policy No. 6171: Title I Programs”.

CUSD on 18 May 06:
- set the threshold at 40% for receiving Federal T1 SWP funds
- the composition of the enrolment for the next year, 2006-07, was known
- it was known that scores were continuing to drop for the disadvantaged
- it was 19.3% for 2004-05 - the minimum Target = 24.4 %
- it dropped to 18.6% for 2005-06
- they had every reason to believe that the following year, it would not reach the minimum Target of   24.4 % - which it didn’t - 2006-07 continued dropping to 17.2%
- if that happened, while receiving T1 funds, Farallone View Elementary would be designated by the State as a failing school
- what they apparently didn’t understand was the intricacies when they changed it to a SWP !

The 18 May 06 CUSD Board meeting Minutes indicated “Ms. Schreurs requested that Item E, Revision to Board Policy No. 6171 - Title I Programs, be removed from the consent agenda for clarification.” “Ms. Schreurs received clarification on Item E, Revision to Board Policy No. 6171 - Title I Programs.” It set the minimum percentage of SED enrolment to 40% for SWP schools. Jolanda Schreurs was Board President at the time and had full access to all information!

Apparently, along the way, Farallone View Elementary status was changed to from a TAS to a SWP school.

Targeted Assistance Schools (TAS)  VS School-wide Programs (SWP):
Title I, Part A, Targeted Assistance Schools, TAS, like it sounds, money goes only to the disadvantaged who are in danger of failing.
School-Wide Programs, SWP, is a reverse Robin Hood or the CUSD Sheriff of Nottingham Plan - take from the poor and give to the rich.

The Board members declined to answer my question as to why they had acted so!

There remain questions of the School Board intent. Is avoiding PI status, by giving up needed Federal money for Farallone View Elementary a worthwhile plan? Are they just incompetent? Did they believe that the public would not notice?

The irony may be that: Farallone View Elementary is still reported as a failing school, apparently because the status was changed by the School Board to a Title 1 SWP school even though by their actions it was not qualified to receive any Federal money!

The High School was also denied Federal TI TAS funds by the CUSD School Board .

The losers: the students, the teachers, the parents, the community and the fundraisers for Farallone View Elementary
The winner: the reelection of School Board members.

Maureen Anderson asked above:
“Any explanation for why Title I funds were not received? What made them lose eligibility?”

The answer is that the CUSD School Board knowingly acted denying Federal TI funds to the disadvantaged!

When I was in church putting money into the ‘Poor Box’, I read a note near the slot proclaiming that it was emptied twice a day to avoid theft - hard to imagine anyone taking from the poor!

Ken Johnson

CUSD has finally admitted that the earth is not flat -

CUSD has finally updated their required, by State Law, “School Accountability Report Card Reported for School Year 2006-07 Published During 2007-08” although SIX Months after required, identifying Farallone View Elementary School as Year 1 Failing.

CUSD DID succeed at denying students the right to request going to a non-failing school!

Ken Johnson

School Test Results Available on Thursday 14 Aug 2008.

Accountability results activities relating to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for 2008

Timeline of Accountability results:

* 14 Aug 2008 - STAR results available Thursday Afternoon
will show improvement, insufficient to justify granting appeal of additional PI designations

* 04 Sep 2008 - Release of Accountability Progress Report (APR)
available Thursday Afternoon 04 Sep 2008
that is comprised of the state Academic Performance Index (API), the federal Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), and the federal Program Improvement (PI) negative designations.

The District, Cunha Intermediate, Hatch Elementary, and Farallone View Elementary will continue with PI designation, one year further down.
Cunha’s new Year 5 designation is as far down as a school can drop.
El Granada Elementary will be a year away from PI designation.

* 09 Sep 2008 - Release of annual California High School Exit Exam results.

Ken Johnson

Current (2008) test results are now up at Ed-Data as well.