To all our new readers, we'd like to again show how CCUSD underperforms many of the surrounding public and charter schools.
There is no question that CCUSD does some things well, but this proves there is much room for improvement.
----
2007 Terra Nova Math Grade 2 through 6 Average Percentile Rank
District School PR
-------------------------------------
Benchmark School, Inc. Benchmark School 83.8
Paradise Valley Unified District Grayhawk Elementary School 82
Valley Academy, Inc. Valley Academy 81.6
Scottsdale Unified District Copper Ridge Elementary School 80.75
Paradise Valley Unified District Pinnacle Peak Elementary 78.2
CASY Country Day School CASY Country Day School #1 78
Paradise Valley Unified District Copper Canyon Elementary School 77.8
Cave Creek Unified District Lone Mountain Elementary School 76.75
Cave Creek Unified District Desert Willow Elementary School 74.75
Cave Creek Unified District Desert Sun Elementary School 73.25
Cave Creek Unified District Black Mountain Elementary School 72.25
Cave Creek Unified District Horseshoe Trails Elementary School 70.75
Source: ADE
okay, my kids did a bit better than the averages. I notice a lot of 2 parent working households in our district, whereas some of the better performing schools that you present seem to have more stay at homes. I do think there is a correlation between how much the parents can do with the children after school and how well the kids perform. I think there is some socioeconomics at play here rather than bad teaching. Also, I think we already suffer from school districts that are forced to "teach to test" and would not want that to be the only focus of the schools. I don't see a big enough discrepancy in terra nova scores to produce the amount of parental whining that the parents in this district do.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know if we should have received copies of these scores? We are at Desert Willow. The above parent says their kids did better so obviously someone got scores?
ReplyDeleteParental whining? Coming from a district in Colorado where there is a 98% graduation rate from high school and test scores that are consistently in the 90th percentile, I think I have a right to complain when there is a 67% graduation rate here and test scores in the low seventies!
Granted my daughter is gifted and my son is smart. I do a lot of work with them at home as does their daycare to keep them challenged. However, they both get bored at school because the teachers teach to the lowest child in the class.
I'd rather them teach them so they can pass the test with higher than 70% then have them in a school that is obviously falling behind. A+ really? If they want kids who can't pass a college entrance exam, then by all means keep teaching them the way they are.
Teaching to the lowest child and having a wide mix of students in each class is due to No Child Left Behind, not CCUSD. I don't know what school you are at, who your child's teachers are, but with the exception of our son's first teacher here (a second grade teacher who is not in the district anymore), we have found the teachers here to be as good and even better than the "top" district that we came from.
ReplyDeleteForgot to mention, re: the test scores - you should receive a copy in the mail over the summer.
ReplyDeleteWhere is 67 percent grad rate coming from? I looked up and found an 89 percent grad rate.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Colorado just revised the way that they look at grad rates about a year ago. They were including gre's. Once removed, grad rates for different districts dipped on average about 5 percent. So 98 percent is probably closer to 93 and not that far off from CCUSD. I do not know enough about CO district to contrast the test scores.
Of course, there is always room for improvement. That is not the parental whining I am talking about. I am referring to the blatant negativism and inability of folks around here to actually try to work with the teachers, the educators, the superintendent to help improve things. I am talking about the closed mindedness to things like Everyday Math, the same exact program used by the top school district that we came from and openly embraced there because so many educators are behind it.
I am also talking about a district where many parents complain, yet those same parents aren't willing to fund education with the same zeal that I will bet they funded education in your district in Colorado. Our per pupil funding is exactly half of the per pupil funding from our last district. Given the budget constraints that CCUSD and most Arizona districts are up against, it is a wonder they can educate our children at all.
I work in the district and today at a staff meeting the topics were:
ReplyDeletea) how can we fundraise $20,000 to keep our library aide who has been there 15+ years and would be a bargain at twice her salary?
b) how can we fundraise enough money to buy new tables for the cafeteria? The current ones are almost 20 years old and falling apart. Our total soft capital fund is $10,000 for the next school year and new tables will cost at least $15,000...
c) how can we raise enough money to replace obsolete computers? The computers in the computer lab are 7+ years old and not in good condition.
d) will we have heat and/or air conditioning next year? Last year we had no heat in December, January and February. Our HVAC system is on its last legs. And what about the electical system that won't allow us to operate both a microwave and a computer at the same time without blowing a fuse? Total repairs and upkeep needed are estimated to cost more than 9 million dollars at my school alone. The staff who work in the kitchen have no air conditioning at all and really suffer the first two to three months of school.
e) Will students be able to attend after school office hours, study halls, tutoring, clubs and sports this year since we will not have late buses and very few students live within walking distance of the school?
f) Will students be able to afford to participate in sports and clubs this year since fees have gone up to $75 per club and $100 per sport?
g) Will the Spanish-speaking science teacher we need to hire accept our job offer when she can make more in almost any other district?
h) How will class sizes between 33-35 students affect learning since we had to cut three teachers and two classified staff members this year?
This is just the tip of the iceberg. I know money doesn't necessary result in happiness but it sure would make things easier in CCUSD.
Dear June 4, 2008 5:53 PM,
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for the information. These are the issues the district needs to focus on and to get out to the public.
We attended those Budget 101/102 meetings and we never heard about needed cafeteria tables or HVAC problems or firing library staff. For the schools we heard about things like smartboards, digital signs, av upgrades to classrooms, etc and of course we we heard about $23 million for new computers and $.25 billion total costs for a new high school.
Maybe the new high school issue is finally dead and we can focus on issues like these and improving academic achievement.
I am surprised that you did not know about all the other physical needs of the school. When the bonds were introduced for vote last year, CCSOS presented a huge notebook of information on them (and was criticized in the Sonoran bird cage liner for doing so...questioning its legality in terms of elections). It was a way to try to stem so much of the criticism that comes up once an election is called.
ReplyDeleteBecause, as I'm sure you are aware, once an election is called, state regulations highly limit what can be said in regard to that election. Basically, other than repeating the specific bond language (which is written by lawyers to ensure everything is legal--not by writers who want to fully explain the issue), the district's hands are tied in responding to questions, etc. as they are watched by those who like to criticise everything in this town.
Every time someone from the district says something in support of an election issue they are accused of "promoting" the issue and, heaven forbid, they said something on school property or at a school event...then they get criticised even more; and folks threaten to go to the elections board and protest the election.
So CCSOS took all the notes and minutes and myriad of hundreds and hundreds of pages of handouts that were provided to those who gave up a year of their life to sit on the LRP committee and gave them to the board when calling for the election. That information was then posted on the website. One piece of that information was a very lengthy document outlining all the needs of the schools.
For some of the older schools, which are in SERIOUS need of facility upgrade and renovation; there was anywhere from $11 million to $13 million (I believe) included. That included things like, repairing air conditioning, replacing flooring, upgrading electrical, not just "smartbaords" and technology. It also included "tot Turff". Tot Turff is not on the list because it is something "nice to have". It is an ADA necessity. Tot Turf allows wheelchair-bound students to be able to access the playgrounds.
In regard to technology. I find it rather ironic that a web-based blog seems ot be so negative toward technology in the schools.
I was skeptical about Smartbaords when they were first introduced into the district myself until I saw the ways our teachers use them. They are not just glorified chalk boards. They use them for a wide variety of projects and programs and since we don't have enough computers for each student to have one on his/her desk (or even computers that actually work at all), the Smartboards allow shared access to computer programs, etc. that do not even run on the classroom computers.
I disagree with the assessment here that the technology plan on the last bond was just "buying stuff". I was asked if I would be willing to vocally support the technology bond in 2000, I believe it was the year. I asked if there was a technology plan to which the funds would be applied. I was told "yes, there is." When I asked to see it I was told I couldn't see it. So I was being asked to go out and support a bond for a plan that I wasn't allowed to see. Interesting.
This last bond issue, there was a plan. It was developed with teachers, technology experts, parents and administration. It was designed to align technology across the district and, initially, focus on providing students computers for use in the classroom. It was published on the CCUSD website. Everyone could look at it. Perhaps there was not a huge amount in the plan for teacher training, etc. but I know from all these meetings that there is such a paranoia in the district that nothing will ever get supported financially, that they begin to create bonds for as little as possible--only trying to work on those issues that need immediate attention.
Unfortunately, with the history of bonds not passing, some of those issues have reached nearly critical status and the cost of fixing them are much bigger than they would have been if supported all along (such as facilities that, in some cases I think anyone who lived in the "affluent" and "educated" areas of Carefree or Cave Creek would be and should be embarrassed by. Schools in South Phoenix have much nicer facilities than at least half the schools up here--but I digress). Too many years were spent only passing bonds to build new buildings (which were necessary) and not including ANY maintenance and upgrade in the bond for fear it would be to high and not pass.
So technology is a prime example. Technology, unfortunately, has a limited life span. You cannot purchase a computer and expect it to be acceptable for use more than 5 years from now. But, since the district hasn't been able to pass a bond to upgrade the technology and since the district qualfies for little (if any) state technology funds, the computers in the classrooms are, in some cases, more than 15 years old. They should all be turned into fish tanks because the students/ teachers make no effort to even try to work with them or even turn them on half the time.
I am just amazed. Is this what the folks in Carefree/Cave Creek want? Do they want to be humiliated by the types of equipment the students have in the schoools? Kids come home and work on state-of-the art computers and then go to school and get so frustrated just waiting for Microsoft Word to load they give up on completing any work on the computer. Is this good training for our students? Is this teaching them important skills they need to know to compete in the job market?
I don't know. I'm just a bit confused.
District employee...
ReplyDeleteIt sounds as if you do not attend a school with a strong PTO. That is really sad as our PTO has the ability to raise enough to cover the tables and our school already has replaced (through business donations) all the computers in our classrooms -- it only took a couple of months. There was still money involved there as the software licenses have to be purchased and the computers have to be set up for use in the schools; and in some cases the computers have to be shipped, but the PTO was able to pick up a large part of that (and it was a lot less money than purchasing all new ones--however, they won't last as long as these are already about 3 years old--but since our old ones were easily 10+ years old, this is MUCH better).
Our PTO will not fund teaching aides and it is written into our By-Laws that we will not do so. There are several reasons why...the most prominent being that is a LOT of money and it is difficult to guarantee that sum of money can be raised year after year in support of a PERSON.
Also, it is the district's role to hire people, not a PTOs. Our PTO is extremely successful because we are able to support capital projects. These projects support the school AND are visible to our parents who instantly see the outcomes of their PTO dollars and know that our PTO sets goals and achieves them.
Aides are extremely important to the schools; but in our opinion it is not the role of a PTO to support them. Parents should have fought for those aids instead of letting the Gifted parents scream loudest and get the most attention. The $$ they put into saving that program would have supported a lot of aids in the classroom.
As for sports...I currently pay nearly $5000 a year for the activity of one of my children and nearly $3000 year for the activity of another. One is a club sport--that sport at the school for $100 would be a BARGAIN. It costs around $120 to register for rec soccer and $135 or so for Little League baseball for both there are still some addditional uniform and equipment purchases parents need to make on top of those fees. Let's not even talk about the costs of youth football. Parents have no problem coming up with those...
I think it much more sad that they cut the strings program rather than raise sports fees. If your child doesn't participate in a sport at school, there are club, rec and tons of other sports programs in the area. There is NOTHING in terms of music. The closest place that I can even think of that offers classes in classical instruments is either in Tempe or downtown Phoenix. Yet we cut out of the school that program. Where are those kids going to go to get that musical education?
I do feel your pain...these times are extremely difficult. The issues with the air conditioning are made even more difficult since the board voted to use emergency funds which would (I would assume) have been used should the air conditioning system there go out entirely. It wasn't enough to fix the whole system, but it was a lot.
CCUSD may end up in the same boat as Corona where the state facilities board refuses to pay for emergency repairs saying the equipment was not maintained properly or that the community should step up and pass a bond to do so...
Well, I believe those repairs were on the last bond too...Really sad.
Yes, at this moment in time, based on spring 2007 scores, it shows CCUSD underperformed those schools you've listed.
ReplyDeleteBut when you look at the trends of the data from ADE school report cards from 2005 - 2007 you'll notice quite a few of the schools you've listed actually have DPA/TerraNova scores dropping.
Factor in differences in bonds passed/funding, ELL populations, special ed populations, free and reduced lunch and overall student counts and then really LOOK at the scores.
Here is what the data shows for the schools you selected to highlight:
----------------------------------
Benchmark School, Inc. Benchmark School (Core Knowledge)
K-6 charter/408 students/O ELL student/ n/a free reduced lunch
ordered r to l -2005-2006-2007
math 84-82-83
reading 80-79-79
language 77-76-78
*Down in math and reading, up in language.
Paradise Valley Unified District Grayhawk Elementary School
K-6 public/769 students/2%ELL, 2% Free reduced lunch
math 80-80-81
reading 80-80-79
language 78-80-79
*Down in reading, up in math and language.
Valley Academy, Inc. Valley Academy
k-8 charter/725 students/0 ELL/ n/a free reduced lunch)
math 80-85-82
rdg 75-80-77
lang 78-80-79
*Up in all.
Scottsdale Unified District Copper Ridge Elementary School
k-5 public/561 students/ 2% ELL/ 2% free reduced lunch
math 60 -77-80
rdg 73-75-75
lang 74-74-75
*Up in all.
Paradise Valley Unified District Pinnacle Peak Elementary
k-6 public /836 students/ <1% ELL, 1% Free reduced lunch)
math 75-76-78
rdg 76-77-78
lang 74-77-78
*up in all.
CASY Country Day School CASY Country Day School #1
k-5charter/139 students/0 ELL/na/free reduced lunch
math 85-84-78
rdg 83-78-76
lang 83-81-79
*Down in all areas.
Paradise Valley Unified District Copper Canyon Elementary School
k-6public/727 students/2%ELL/3%Free reduced lunch
math 79-78-77
rdg 76-77-77
lang 75-74-74
*Down in math and lang, up in rdg.
Cave Creek Unified District Lone Mountain Elementary School
k-5public/575 students/ can't find data on ELL or free reduced lunch
math 70-72-76
rdg 64-68-69
lang 63-66-70
*Up in all areas.
Cave Creek Unified District Desert Willow Elementary School
k-5public/632 students/<1%ELL/7% free and reduced lunch
math 69-74-74
rdg 72-71-72
lang 71-70-73
*up in all areas.
Cave Creek Unified District Desert Sun Elementary School
k-5 public/459 students/4% free and reduced lunch/ ? ELL
math 75-73-73
rdg 70-70-68
lang 71-67-72
*Down in math and rdg, up in lang. Currently in the process of becoming a core knowledge school.
Cave Creek Unified District Black Mountain Elementary School
k-5 public/579 students/4%ELL, 11% free and reduced lunch
math 66-66-70
rdg 64-63-64
lang 58-62-63
*Up in all areas.
Cave Creek Unified District Horseshoe Trails Elementary School
k-5public/524 students/ ELL?, Freereduced? (only two years of DPA/TN data on this 3 year old school at ADE)
rdg 66-68
lang 65-68
*Up in all areas.
----------------------------------
I'd ask is your focus truly on the curriculum? Because the data seems to indicate that recent curriculum changes have had positive impact at the elementary level; atleast if the only measure of success your group uses is test scores.
Teachers, students, community partners, families, and admin in CCUSD are all working hard to increase achievement.
I am not a "support anything CCUSD does and says" person. I believe there are problems with this district, just as there are in all districts, but come on. Don't discredit or discount the work that's been done already and continues. It may not have CCUSD where you want them to be yet, but it sure looks like they are headed there.
In the future, I'd hope that you'd work to share data that gives an ACCURATE/COMPLETE picture when justifying the goals you say your group is trying to achieve in CCUSD education reform.
My last comment shows Black Mountain and Lone Moutain's reading scores in 2007 were up from 2006, but the same as 2005. So the * that says up in all areas is not correct. It should say up in math and lng, same in reading.
ReplyDeleteOne more try..sorry, but I want to be accurate. It should say * up in lang and math, same in reading on BLACK MOUNTAIN and DESERT WILLOW, not Lone Mountain.
ReplyDeleteThat's looking at change from 2005 to 2007, not from 06 to 07.
I left off the math scores for Horseshoe Trails:
ReplyDeletemath 69-70
* up in all areas.
Outstanding work! Thanks so much for those test scores.
ReplyDeleteI guess I don't see much difference. CCUSD scores are in the low 70's and these surrounding schools are in the upper 70s/80s, while we all have similar demographics.
Maybe this years scores will make the trend clearer.
You don't see the difference in an upward vs. downward trend? I would imagine people in the schools where the scores are dropping do.
ReplyDeleteYou don't see a difference in a school with 11% of the students on free/reduced lunch and 4% ELL vs. a school with no students in either group? Check into some of the research on poverty levels and language proficiency as they impact academic achievement.
Again, I ask you, "Exactly what specific curriculum materials would your group want CCUSD to use to bring about immediate change to achieve scores into the upper 70/80's or beyond range?"
Interesting things to think about.
ReplyDeleteUnsure about ELL, but Free Lunch has been discounted by many in the education field since it is self-reported, unverified, and subject to manipulation.
Do you think that the ELL/Free Lunch differences account for the majority of the disparity in test scores?
Our position is that it does not and the disparity primarily due to curriculum differences. Se our 20 suggestions for improving academics.
No, CCUSD rates of ELL/Free lunch wouldn't account for MOST of the disparity in the scores. But to believe factors such as these wouldn't account for at the least SOME disparity seems odd.
ReplyDeleteAs for research, I guess it just goes to show that there is abundant research to support either side of any issue.
I've seen your list of solutions. Several things on your list have already happened in the elementary schools-new reading (yes, with phonics) materials and jr. great books now at some sites, new social studies and science materials too.
Was CCUSD Watch involved in selecting or reviewing any of these new curriculum materials? If these weren't the materials you'd hoped for, what were?
It's easy to say dump Everyday Math in favor of something with mastery. What specifically do you want to see used? How will you judge success? How long are you willing to give teachers and students to bring up the scores once the things YOU want adopted are in place?
It’s not the curriculum, it’s the teachers...With any message or information, it is not always what you say, it is how you say it. The key to success with any math curriculum is the teacher's understanding and ability to deliver the material. My children's experience with the math curriculum is mixed--as it depended on the teacher's ability (and desire) to deliver the material as the program was designed.
ReplyDeleteThis math program is different and may require more training on the teacher’s end in order for students to benefit from its approach. I am not sure the statistics show success or failure at this point. I also know that published statistics may be misleading unless background information and context is provided
The success of this curriculum is perhaps more tied to the ability of our district to prepare teachers to use it. Given the movement of teachers between grades, sites and new hires, it would take extra effort to bring teachers up to speed. I would hope that the evaluation of any adopted curriculum would take the learning and practice curve for teachers into account.
I have appreciated various aspects of the program. The idea that problems can be solved in different ways allows for some exploration and initiative, which promotes critical thinking generally. I also appreciate that higher-end concepts such as algebra and geometry are introduced earlier without the expectation of mastery but exposure.
I do think that some of our brighter math students may be left out of the curriculum if the teacher doesn't provide a path for them to move into the material more deeply. As in language arts, it wouldn't be that we ask them to read a different book necessarily; it's that we ask them different questions. If teachers teach to the "middle" then we are losing on two fronts. A skilled teacher would utilize differentiation with any curriculum.
I am sure there are district teachers and perhaps entire schools that approach the curriculum as it was intended with measurable results. Instead of seeing the posted scores as an eyesore, a more in depth look might find the key to a successful math program.