Interesting.. not surprising is that the 7th and 8th grades were hit the hardest. Where did this document come from? I'd really like to see the other schools' breakdowns. We've only lost a total of 41 overall?? Frankly, that seems a bit surprising.
I think there is good news as well as bad news in this report.
I guess that what surprises me is the strength at the high school level. Very little loss in the first two years. Typically, there has been a good deal of attrition when kids switch over to the 9th grade. Growth in grades 11 and 12.
I know of people who had their kids in PV and put them into CSHS for high school specifically for the IB program. I wonder if some of the specialized programs, etc. are starting to help CSHS to retain and attract students. If so, that would be good news for the district.
Not surprised on the middle school level. I think that even without the closure of DAMS, many parents were very disappointed with the growth in class size at the middle school level and were looking at other options. DAMS closure was more like the icing on the cake.
BMES? Could be due to several factors and would be curious as to whether district discusses. I.e. it could be due to the direction of the school, it could be a loss of open enrolls in the Desert Hills area who have decided to go to the schools they are zoned for now that DAMS has shut, it could be a loss of students in that area that was already projected for, etc. I do think it is significant enough of a loss to prompt some investigation.
Did anyone REALLY read the enrollment report from the 9/14/10 board packet?? Unless I overlooked something.. it is VERY curious how they only list 3 SMTS 7th graders withdrawing and 3 STMS 8th graders withdrawing. (one in each grade noted to have moved to Explorer). I will assume that these 6 kids had been STMS students in 2009-10. If I am correct, then where are the numbers for ALL of the DAMS kids that withdrew from the district. I'm not the suspicious type--but NOwhere in this headcount list mentions "DAMS" kids who didn't return. Shouldn't those heads be accounted for? What is the district NOT telling us? Are the numbers too embarrassing?
I'm not sure why you are asking this question here, and not at the next board meeting. It is a perfectly legitimate question to ask. I don't know if "the district" is trying to hide something, however it is possible that the person who puts together the numbers for the district left it out on their own.
When you take the BMES numbers compare the the 1st grade class of 2010 to the K class of 2099 they are down 10 students...do that for every class and the net effect is just at BMES they are down 30 students overall.
Take another look at those BMES numbers they are down closer to 70 students the enrollment on the last day was 524 and the enrollment today is around 540. The 5th grade class from 09/10 was large and should have ballooned BMES's enrollment to those comparable with the other district elementaries. Instead BMES moved to dead last in enrollment. There's definately a story here. BMES is experiencing an identity crisis. The closure of DAMS caused a ripple effect at BMES. Parents don't feel that same connection to CCUSD. The direct line from elementary to high school has been fractured and I think CCUSD opened the door for those parents to look outside of the district. Add to this the confusion surrounding the curriculum adoptions at the elementaries and we'll just have to see if CCUSD's roll of the dice results in enrollment retention, increases or continuing drops. I am a firm believer in "let's worry about the kids we have not the ones that got away" but after a year of district rhetoric regarding the previous loss of 90 students and witnessing their efforts to "get back" those students I think they should be forced to quantify our losses this year publicly. I for one am tired of the hypocrisy. Transparency is seen not heard.
BMES lost somewhere between 40 to 70 students. That's a very big drop for a school this size and no other elementary school in the district had the same problem. It's a loss of 40 students at BMES when you compare last year's kindergarten to this year's first grade, or any grade last year to the grade the students should be in this year. It's a loss of 70 students when you compare last year's K to this year's K, last year's 1st to this year's 1st, etc. Not sure how the district would calculate this. Anonymous @ 11:19 am is correct about overall enrollment. It looks like BMES went from being the third largest elementary school to being the smallest elementary school. This and the drop in BMES test scores is not going to help that school in the future. Sad and they will just keep telling everyone it's all okay. A similar look at 6th, 7th, 8th grades in the district shows they lost anywhere from 49 to 66 in those grades across the board. I agree that we need to focus on those students who are still here, but am concerned about what this all means to my kids and their education when I'm not given any information about what is going to be done to get us on the right track. The district spent most of last year focused on marketing. It doesn't seem to have made a difference and it sure didn't do anything to help BMES. BMES is in big trouble and no one is being honest or helpful about it.
BMES has been discussed on this board for a while. There are serious issues there the administration chooses not to address. Take a look at the Great Schools site since the new principal took over. The change in parent comments is dramatic. If parents at that school do not start addressing the issues BMES will be on the chopping block next (and making it K-8 will not help...kids/parents are unhappy there now why would they want to stay there longer?).
As for the other numbers, I thought all-day Kindergarten was supposed to bring in so many more students, yet there is a DROP in the overall number of kindergarteners in the district?
How can that be? Rumor has it that large numbers of kindergarteners at the above-mentioned school are open enrolled from Deer Valley...while district spokespeople say there is "research" that proves those folk will stay in the district, I am dubious at best. First, because what is called "research" on the district level is really embarrassing. Second, the district doesn't have a model like this to research.
When CCUSD went to all-day kindergarten initially so did the surrounding districts so they were saying it would "keep people from leaving". In that case, it probably kept people who lived in the district from chasing the free daycare.
Perhaps without it some of those folk might have looked elsewhere -- probably like these Deer Valley folk. But at that time CCUSD was seeing increase in test scores and rankings with their schools so I think CCUSD probably would have gotten back any they lost who tired of the driving after a year--just like Deer Valley will next year when the free daycare comes in the form of first grade and it is a lot closer to home.
The piece of information I do not think we will ever see (because this level of research does not exist for CCUSD) is what quality of students were lost vs the quality gained. In other words, has CCUSD lost a lot of longtime supporters of the district in exchange for district hoppers in open enrollment? Even more importantly for their future have they exhanged "yes" votes for people who are unable to vote at all?
It will take a few more years to figure that out, but general rule of marketing is your current customers are your best (and least expensive to keep) customers.
You should always keep them happy first before reaching out for new...guess we forgot that here...hmmm..
So DAMS parents...CCUSD chose all-day kindergarten over you and the result was a loss of students.
I hate to say this, but the District will not address this. It is egg on their face by plenty of staff and parents at BMES. For some reason, not sure to me, Dr. Burdick is the biggest backer of Elie Gaines. So sad to see and hear.
According to the report of the 6th graders from school year 2009/2010 32 of them did not come back to CCUSD for 7th grade and of 2009/2010 7th graders 18 of them did not come back for 8th grade. I wonder if the Adminstration is calling all of those parents to find out why????
The challenge is 3:17am, that is all they talked about last year, was the 90 who left and how to get them back...somehow it doesn't jive, so worried about it last year but not a peep this year.
The board asked them to track those who leave and come into the district. Why would it be any different for those who come or leave over the summer, versus those who leave during the school year?
3:17...It's good business and after all this is a business when you are talking about marketing and budgets...If a business loses a long standing customer wouldn't you ask why?
I have worked along the way in retention marketing and understand the value behind it. I am only asking, given the limited resources that the district has, how do you want to see them spent?
Also, while the district is forced to be a marketing entity because of the open enrollment policy in Arizona, who do they have in the administration with a marketing background? These are educators and administrators, not marketers.
If they were marketing pros, they would be using measurements to derive the value of using their marketing dollars to attract new customers, or using their marketing dollars to retain current customers (or to help bring back lost customers). They obviously go ahead with efforts to attract newbies. This may be at odds with retention efforts. A good marketing department would be run to not just measure, but to balance the needs of both retention and newbie marketing.
But, then again, the district is run by education professionals and not marketing pros. It might be better if somebody at a governing board meeting ask about whether formers are being contacted.
So, I guess the solution is to hire someone with a marketing degree and create a position that has NOTHING to do with educating our kids, thus taking more money out of the classrooms?
Definitely not. I guess that I am trying to say that you have a cash starved district, no money. I don't think they really have a body to dedicate to the phone calls even if the info is helpful to know. Perhaps it is something that someone can occasionally get around to, but probably not on a timetable that would be meaningful.
But they had money. They had over $500,000 to keep all day kg when the voters did not pass the k03 override. They "found" the money for that. This District has money, in places most of us don't understand and they decide on what they want to spend it on. Please don't be fooled. When the "academy" idea came out, Dr. Burdick had a "private funder" willing to pay for the paint. There is money...just follow the trail of special interest that the District and Board have.
Amen to that 6:46 AM!! Exactly why I will be voting NO when they come asking for handouts again. They've proven that they don't listen to the majority time and time again.
Stop drinking the koolaid 6:46A and 8:41A. Yes, there is some money with flexibility. However, to "find" the all day k money meant cuts in other places to the M&O.
And, private funding is not the same as public funding. It is just great luck that there is someone so thoughtful, kind and generous out there.
Kool Aid? Pot. Kettle. Black. Why is it okay to have private funders? Who are the private funders? What is their agenda? I'm not comfortable with private funders, or anonymous donors, funding things in a public school. Why do these people have to be anonymous? Even if you argue that their intentions are good, it doesn't smell right to me. With these private funders I'm afraid they drive an agenda or set priorities with money. What if a private funder wants to fund something that most teachers or parents don't want or a school doesn't really need?
Sorry Sept 23 at 1:12pm. Some funding? There was enough to pay for all day kg even though the voters didn't support it. The parents in the Districts own survey said they wanted k-5, 6-8 and 9-12. Of course that did not matter. The board even said at the vote to close DAMS they did not need it for the savings this year but for future. They had to come up with money this year with the lowering of funds from the k-3 override. I think if anyone is drinking the koolaid it is you. I hear there is a class at BMES with only 17 kids that is a 3rd or 4th grade class, how can that be cost effective???
7:27 P Show me one school district in the entire nation that has a publicly written policy denying private funding.
8:52P BMES class with only 17 kids. That sounds wonderful in a district whose class sizes have been pushed to the brink. It shows that the district is still committed to making the class sizes small when they can. It is probably due more to the drop in size of the school community.
Sometimes it is more important to pay attention to education research than parent preference. Early childhood education is shown in studies to be valuable. I doubt that CCUSD will be able to keep up full day k, however. So perhaps that too will be cut and your wish will come true. What benefit it will do the children, I have no idea.
You misinterpreted the previous poster 6:38 AM. It’s not the “private” funding that is a problem…it is the “anonymous” private funding that worries some of us who have seen the private agenda of the few trump the majority. Especially funding suddenly found and earmarked for a specific purpose and nothing else. It is kind of obvious that this is a funding path that should be tread lightly in a district supposedly striving for more transparency.
Not sure why I need to show you information about the denial of private funding. I'm not saying private funding is or should be denied. You miss the point. The point is that the motivation of private donors or more specifically, anonymous donors is my concern. To your point, why should a handful of anonymous donors (no names attached)who are fortunate to have money and generous enough to donate be allowed to drive a school's agenda when it comes to curriculum. At BMES the first donations for Core Knowledge books were from anonymous donors. These anonymous people wanted Core Knowledge there. They put money on the table and the ball started rolling. I'm not saying curriculum decisions should be driven singularly by parents. It would be nice for parents to have information and input, but it seems to me there's a double standard when only people with money to spare actually have a say and it concerns me when they are not identified because then we as parents do not really know what their motive is. It's the anonymity nonsense that bothers me, and I don't accept that these people are just too humble to have their names known. If their intentions are good, there is no reason why they should not be identified. The secrets are silly and alienate people and nothing more than more of the smoke and mirrors that seems to be going on in this district.
Sorry if I misunderstood you. However, I also believe that there are no school boards with policy that prohibits private donations if anonymous. Schools need money, I don't think they want to turn it away even if it leaves people in the position of questioning the intentions of the donor.
In Cave Creek, it is probably much simpler to make a donation anonymously than to risk having your reputation attacked by the local rag.
I agree with you, and the point you make about the local rag is a very good one. I just wish I could trust the district. There was a time when I did. I just don't anymore.
Interesting.. not surprising is that the 7th and 8th grades were hit the hardest. Where did this document come from? I'd really like to see the other schools' breakdowns. We've only lost a total of 41 overall?? Frankly, that seems a bit surprising.
ReplyDeleteFrom the 8/29/09 and the 9/14/10 board packets.
ReplyDeleteI think there is good news as well as bad news in this report.
ReplyDeleteI guess that what surprises me is the strength at the high school level. Very little loss in the first two years. Typically, there has been a good deal of attrition when kids switch over to the 9th grade. Growth in grades 11 and 12.
I know of people who had their kids in PV and put them into CSHS for high school specifically for the IB program. I wonder if some of the specialized programs, etc. are starting to help CSHS to retain and attract students. If so, that would be good news for the district.
Not surprised on the middle school level. I think that even without the closure of DAMS, many parents were very disappointed with the growth in class size at the middle school level and were looking at other options. DAMS closure was more like the icing on the cake.
BMES? Could be due to several factors and would be curious as to whether district discusses. I.e. it could be due to the direction of the school, it could be a loss of open enrolls in the Desert Hills area who have decided to go to the schools they are zoned for now that DAMS has shut, it could be a loss of students in that area that was already projected for, etc. I do think it is significant enough of a loss to prompt some investigation.
Did anyone REALLY read the enrollment report from the 9/14/10 board packet?? Unless I overlooked something.. it is VERY curious how they only list 3 SMTS 7th graders withdrawing and 3 STMS 8th graders withdrawing. (one in each grade noted to have moved to Explorer). I will assume that these 6 kids had been STMS students in 2009-10. If I am correct, then where are the numbers for ALL of the DAMS kids that withdrew from the district. I'm not the suspicious type--but NOwhere in this headcount list mentions "DAMS" kids who didn't return. Shouldn't those heads be accounted for? What is the district NOT telling us? Are the numbers too embarrassing?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure why you are asking this question here, and not at the next board meeting. It is a perfectly legitimate question to ask. I don't know if "the district" is trying to hide something, however it is possible that the person who puts together the numbers for the district left it out on their own.
ReplyDeleteWhen you take the BMES numbers compare the the 1st grade class of 2010 to the K class of 2099 they are down 10 students...do that for every class and the net effect is just at BMES they are down 30 students overall.
ReplyDeleteTake another look at those BMES numbers they are down closer to 70 students the enrollment on the last day was 524 and the enrollment today is around 540. The 5th grade class from 09/10 was large and should have ballooned BMES's enrollment to those comparable with the other district elementaries. Instead BMES moved to dead last in enrollment. There's definately a story here. BMES is experiencing an identity crisis. The closure of DAMS caused a ripple effect at BMES. Parents don't feel that same connection to CCUSD. The direct line from elementary to high school has been fractured and I think CCUSD opened the door for those parents to look outside of the district. Add to this the confusion surrounding the curriculum adoptions at the elementaries and we'll just have to see if CCUSD's roll of the dice results in enrollment retention, increases or
ReplyDeletecontinuing drops. I am a firm believer in "let's worry about the kids we have not the ones that got away" but after a year of district rhetoric regarding the previous loss of 90 students and witnessing their efforts to "get back" those students
I think they should be forced to quantify our losses this year publicly. I for one am tired of the hypocrisy. Transparency is seen not heard.
BMES lost somewhere between 40 to 70 students. That's a very big drop for a school this size and no other elementary school in the district had the same problem. It's a loss of 40 students at BMES when you compare last year's kindergarten to this year's first grade, or any grade last year to the grade the students should be in this year. It's a loss of 70 students when you compare last year's K to this year's K, last year's 1st to this year's 1st, etc. Not sure how the district would calculate this. Anonymous @ 11:19 am is correct about overall enrollment. It looks like BMES went from being the third largest elementary school to being the smallest elementary school. This and the drop in BMES test scores is not going to help that school in the future. Sad and they will just keep telling everyone it's all okay. A similar look at 6th, 7th, 8th grades in the district shows they lost anywhere from 49 to 66 in those grades across the board. I agree that we need to focus on those students who are still here, but am concerned about what this all means to my kids and their education when I'm not given any information about what is going to be done to get us on the right track. The district spent most of last year focused on marketing. It doesn't seem to have made a difference and it sure didn't do anything to help BMES. BMES is in big trouble and no one is being honest or helpful about it.
ReplyDeleteBMES has been discussed on this board for a while. There are serious issues there the administration chooses not to address. Take a look at the Great Schools site since the new principal took over. The change in parent comments is dramatic. If parents at that school do not start addressing the issues BMES will be on the chopping block next (and making it K-8 will not help...kids/parents are unhappy there now why would they want to stay there longer?).
ReplyDeleteAs for the other numbers, I thought all-day Kindergarten was supposed to bring in so many more students, yet there is a DROP in the overall number of kindergarteners in the district?
How can that be? Rumor has it that large numbers of kindergarteners at the above-mentioned school are open enrolled from Deer Valley...while district spokespeople say there is "research" that proves those folk will stay in the district, I am dubious at best. First, because what is called "research" on the district level is really embarrassing. Second, the district doesn't have a model like this to research.
When CCUSD went to all-day kindergarten initially so did the surrounding districts so they were saying it would "keep people from leaving". In that case, it probably kept people who lived in the district from chasing the free daycare.
Perhaps without it some of those folk might have looked elsewhere -- probably like these Deer Valley folk. But at that time CCUSD was seeing increase in test scores and rankings with their schools so I think CCUSD probably would have gotten back any they lost who tired of the driving after a year--just like Deer Valley will next year when the free daycare comes in the form of first grade and it is a lot closer to home.
The piece of information I do not think we will ever see (because this level of research does not exist for CCUSD) is what quality of students were lost vs the quality gained. In other words, has CCUSD lost a lot of longtime supporters of the district in exchange for district hoppers in open enrollment? Even more importantly for their future have they exhanged "yes" votes for people who are unable to vote at all?
It will take a few more years to figure that out, but general rule of marketing is your current customers are your best (and least expensive to keep) customers.
You should always keep them happy first before reaching out for new...guess we forgot that here...hmmm..
So DAMS parents...CCUSD chose all-day kindergarten over you and the result was a loss of students.
I hate to say this, but the District will not address this. It is egg on their face by plenty of staff and parents at BMES. For some reason, not sure to me, Dr. Burdick is the biggest backer of Elie Gaines. So sad to see and hear.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the report of the 6th graders from school year 2009/2010 32 of them did not come back to CCUSD for 7th grade and of 2009/2010 7th graders 18 of them did not come back for 8th grade. I wonder if the Adminstration is calling all of those parents to find out why????
ReplyDeleteHow does that attrition rate compare to prior years? If it is notably higher than priors, they might followup. If it is about the same, they may not.
ReplyDeleteWe are a family who left the district after 10 years...No exit interview, No follow up phone call, One could say the silence is deafening.
ReplyDeleteThe district has limited resources. Would you rather they spent them on exit interviews, or on education?
ReplyDelete3:17 a.m.
ReplyDeleteFine if they don't do exit interviews, just as long as they don't report results of these non-existent interviews at next board meeting.
Agreed:)
ReplyDeleteThe challenge is 3:17am, that is all they talked about last year, was the 90 who left and how to get them back...somehow it doesn't jive, so worried about it last year but not a peep this year.
ReplyDeleteThe board asked them to track those who leave and come into the district. Why would it be any different for those who come or leave over the summer, versus those who leave during the school year?
ReplyDelete3:17...It's good business and after all this is a business when you are talking about marketing and budgets...If a business loses a long standing customer wouldn't you ask why?
ReplyDelete4:37PM
ReplyDeleteI have worked along the way in retention marketing and understand the value behind it. I am only asking, given the limited resources that the district has, how do you want to see them spent?
Also, while the district is forced to be a marketing entity because of the open enrollment policy in Arizona, who do they have in the administration with a marketing background? These are educators and administrators, not marketers.
If they were marketing pros, they would be using measurements to derive the value of using their marketing dollars to attract new customers, or using their marketing dollars to retain current customers (or to help bring back lost customers). They obviously go ahead with efforts to attract newbies. This may be at odds with retention efforts. A good marketing department would be run to not just measure, but to balance the needs of both retention and newbie marketing.
But, then again, the district is run by education professionals and not marketing pros. It might be better if somebody at a governing board meeting ask about whether formers are being contacted.
3:17A
So, I guess the solution is to hire someone with a marketing degree and create a position that has NOTHING to do with educating our kids, thus taking more money out of the classrooms?
ReplyDeleteDefinitely not. I guess that I am trying to say that you have a cash starved district, no money. I don't think they really have a body to dedicate to the phone calls even if the info is helpful to know. Perhaps it is something that someone can occasionally get around to, but probably not on a timetable that would be meaningful.
ReplyDelete3:17A
But they had money. They had over $500,000 to keep all day kg when the voters did not pass the k03 override. They "found" the money for that. This District has money, in places most of us don't understand and they decide on what they want to spend it on. Please don't be fooled. When the "academy" idea came out, Dr. Burdick had a "private funder" willing to pay for the paint. There is money...just follow the trail of special interest that the District and Board have.
ReplyDeleteAmen to that 6:46 AM!! Exactly why I will be voting NO when they come asking for handouts again. They've proven that they don't listen to the majority time and time again.
ReplyDeleteStop drinking the koolaid 6:46A and 8:41A. Yes, there is some money with flexibility. However, to "find" the all day k money meant cuts in other places to the M&O.
ReplyDeleteAnd, private funding is not the same as public funding. It is just great luck that there is someone so thoughtful, kind and generous out there.
Kool Aid? Pot. Kettle. Black. Why is it okay to have private funders? Who are the private funders? What is their agenda? I'm not comfortable with private funders, or anonymous donors, funding things in a public school. Why do these people have to be anonymous? Even if you argue that their intentions are good, it doesn't smell right to me. With these private funders I'm afraid they drive an agenda or set priorities with money. What if a private funder wants to fund something that most teachers or parents don't want or a school doesn't really need?
ReplyDeleteSorry Sept 23 at 1:12pm. Some funding? There was enough to pay for all day kg even though the voters didn't support it. The parents in the Districts own survey said they wanted k-5, 6-8 and 9-12. Of course that did not matter. The board even said at the vote to close DAMS they did not need it for the savings this year but for future. They had to come up with money this year with the lowering of funds from the k-3 override. I think if anyone is drinking the koolaid it is you. I hear there is a class at BMES with only 17 kids that is a 3rd or 4th grade class, how can that be cost effective???
ReplyDelete7:27 P Show me one school district in the entire nation that has a publicly written policy denying private funding.
ReplyDelete8:52P BMES class with only 17 kids. That sounds wonderful in a district whose class sizes have been pushed to the brink. It shows that the district is still committed to making the class sizes small when they can. It is probably due more to the drop in size of the school community.
Sometimes it is more important to pay attention to education research than parent preference. Early childhood education is shown in studies to be valuable. I doubt that CCUSD will be able to keep up full day k, however. So perhaps that too will be cut and your wish will come true. What benefit it will do the children, I have no idea.
You misinterpreted the previous poster 6:38 AM. It’s not the “private” funding that is a problem…it is the “anonymous” private funding that worries some of us who have seen the private agenda of the few trump the majority. Especially funding suddenly found and earmarked for a specific purpose and nothing else. It is kind of obvious that this is a funding path that should be tread lightly in a district supposedly striving for more transparency.
ReplyDeleteNot sure why I need to show you information about the denial of private funding. I'm not saying private funding is or should be denied. You miss the point. The point is that the motivation of private donors or more specifically, anonymous donors is my concern. To your point, why should a handful of anonymous donors (no names attached)who are fortunate to have money and generous enough to donate be allowed to drive a school's agenda when it comes to curriculum. At BMES the first donations for Core Knowledge books were from anonymous donors. These anonymous people wanted Core Knowledge there. They put money on the table and the ball started rolling. I'm not saying curriculum decisions should be driven singularly by parents. It would be nice for parents to have information and input, but it seems to me there's a double standard when only people with money to spare actually have a say and it concerns me when they are not identified because then we as parents do not really know what their motive is. It's the anonymity nonsense that bothers me, and I don't accept that these people are just too humble to have their names known. If their intentions are good, there is no reason why they should not be identified. The secrets are silly and alienate people and nothing more than more of the smoke and mirrors that seems to be going on in this district.
ReplyDeleteSorry if I misunderstood you. However, I also believe that there are no school boards with policy that prohibits private donations if anonymous. Schools need money, I don't think they want to turn it away even if it leaves people in the position of questioning the intentions of the donor.
ReplyDeleteIn Cave Creek, it is probably much simpler to make a donation anonymously than to risk having your reputation attacked by the local rag.
I agree with you, and the point you make about the local rag is a very good one. I just wish I could trust the district. There was a time when I did. I just don't anymore.
ReplyDelete