Are you kidding me??? You are fine with gifted kids scoring proficient?? These are kids who scored in the 95th percentile in aptitude, yet you are fine with them scoring average in achievement?? The district's tagline is "Ensuring all students achieve their highest potential", not "If students score average, we're good with that." These are gifted kids we're talking about ...to be satisfied with a significant percentage (almost 22%) of Winton Woods gifted students scoring at or below proficient is just plain sad. You can't solve a problem if you brush it under a rug. I'm glad that Superintendent Smith, unlike you, says he is not satisfied with gifted students underachieving and that his goal is for ALL students to achieve at their highest possible level, rather than just focusing on getting all students to proficient and then stopping there. He's explained his viewpoint on this not only privately, but also in his public addresses. And my second "Are you kidding me?" is directed at you spouting what I thought must be facts (I trusted you had data to back it up) when you said that it is worthy to note how many WW parents opt out of testing, yet when I ask for that data, you tell me to go find it myself. Well, I tried, and I was told that data isn't available, so where did you get it from? If you have some source that I'm not privy to, please share that data. It is meaningless to say "it is worthy to note" when you provide no further info. We don't even know if you're saying that more WW parents opt out of testing than Wyoming parents (I think that's what you're saying, but it's not clear) or that fewer WW parents opt out of testing than Wyoming parents. And even if you have data that more WW parents opt out, that data is meaningless without knowing which students are opting out. This particular conversation is about gifted students, so unless the data on opting out is broken down in such a way that we can see how many GIFTED students are opting out, it is pointless to even mention opting out. And unless we have data on how those students are likely to score (such as data on how they've scored in the past), we wouldn't even know if the gifted students opting out are the gifted students likely to score proficient or the gifted students likely to score advanced. So many flaws in arguing that opt-out numbers have any effect on state results, unless there is more data to back it up. Come one, we both want this district to improve, so let's get to work and do what we can do to work toward that goal. Trying to paint a pretty picture while ignoring the very real issues is an injustice to our students, who deserve our fullest efforts to help them succeed. To be satisfied with students underperforming, when they have the potential to do so much more, is taking the easy way out, and is rather insulting to them. My children are Winton Woods students, and their friends are Winton Woods students, and I know that they are capable of so much more than "proficient." Show some faith in the students' abilities, and give them what they need to rise up to success. Don't bring them down with your low expectations.
I had already caught that it was misaligned - my figures are still correct: 77.5% of Winton Woods' gifted students scored above Proficient (Accelerated and above) while 92.9% of Wyoming's gifted students scored above Proficient. You are including the gifted students who are at Proficient, but not above it, and let's be real: Gifted students have the capability to score above Proficient, which is the bare minimum to denote mastery, and if they are not, then that's a red flag that they are not rising to their full potential. Since you mention opting out of testing, could you please provide those figures for Winton Woods as well as Wyoming (how many students opt out), and also how many gifted students opt out in both school districts? That could be a relevant point if more gifted students are opting out of testing in Winton Woods than Wyoming, but the figures are necessary to draw any possible conclusions.
WWWarrior, Those don't look similar to me. For example, 92.9% of Wyoming's gifted students scored above Proficient, while only 77.5% of Winton Woods' gifted students scored above Proficient. If you were to put those percentages in the form of letter grades, Wyoming would get an A and Winton Woods would get a C in terms of percentage of gifted students scoring higher than Proficient. That's concerning to me, because those kids are all gifted, so they are all coming into it with cognitive gifts at a high level, so why are so many more Wyoming gifted kids scoring higher than Winton Woods gifted kids? The ball is being dropped somewhere along the way - those gifted Winton Woods kids have the innate ability to score higher than they are. I'm not saying this to be argumentative - I actually thought you had some figures that showed more of a similarity between Wyoming and Winton Woods gifted students, but instead I'm seeing greater differences. The important question to answer is this: What is the cause of those differences in two groups that have similar innate abilities? Are the Wyoming gifted students getting a better education at school than the Winton Woods gifted students? Are the Wyoming gifted students faced with less distractions that hinder their learning than Winton Woods gifted students? Are the parents of Wyoming gifted students more involved in their children's education than the parents of Winton Woods gifted students? Do the Wyoming gifted students have greater access to gifted enrichment outside of class than Winton Woods gifted students? I could think of a dozen more questions along this line, but it comes down to this: Until we know what is causing the difference, we can't effectively address it. So what can we do to get to the bottom of this?
WWWarrior, so that I can see it more clearly, could you please re-post just the portion to which you are referring - the portion that shows that subsection of WW students that are at similar levels to Wyoming students?
WWWarrior, you said this: " Generally speaking, motivated students are getting a good education when you look at those students who are deemed "gifted" (Proficient, Accel., Advanced)" Could you please provide clarification on that? (My view of the posted numbers was cut off, so maybe I couldn't see the point you were making.) Also, I am confused - are you equating "motivated" with "gifted"? It sounds like you are in your statement, and that's just not the case. There are plenty of motivated students who are not gifted, just as there are plenty of gifted students who are not motivated.
While I am in favor of the students having up-to-par facilities, I had some misgivings about this particular deal as well even while I was in support of new schools. For example, could we have gotten a better deal in terms of the amount the state kicked in? Yes, according to some insiders I know who said that the state has fully funded (100%) new schools for some districts and that we weren't aggressive enough in pursuing additional funds from the state. Another reason I believe we could have gotten a better deal is because all the people who were screaming "This is our last chance for state money!", "If we don't take it now, we'll lose it and some other district will get it!", "We'll go to the back of the line!", "There is no better deal!" were the exact same people screaming the exact same things during the previous bond issue, and guess what? They were WRONG. The state did come back with more money. They should have learned from history itself, even if they didn't believe the people saying the state was positioned to offer more money. I believe if we had asked for more from the state, we would have gotten more, and it would have been a win-win: new buildings with a lower taxpayer burden, which would have then resulted in a happier, more united community. And I hear a lot of people questioning the 37 years. I was always taught that it's a mistake to finance something, even a house, for that long of a term, and that you should always try to keep the term of the loan as short as possible. The longest business loan I have ever taken out was 20 years, and even that term made me somewhat uncomfortable, and we are talking about financing the new buildings for almost twice that length. I would have rather seen a shorter loan for the new school buildings, which would meant more per year but for a shorter term, and would have ultimately saved the taxpayers money since the total loan amount would have been less due to the interest savings with a shorter term. A shorter term would have also guaranteed, as you stated, that we don't end up with a situation in which the district wants to rebuild again before these buildings are paid off.
I saw that same info on the district website calendar, but what does it mean??? Why go to Columbus rather than meeting in town, which would be cheaper and more convenient? Does anyone know what this is about?
Christine, I concede that ThreeHats' comment that "All of the Catholic schools you mention are not my concern" was not well thought out, but still don't know that I would go as far as to publicly call it "stupid." But it does expose the hypocrisy to which you allude - that a few Winton Woods supporters sometimes don't seem to show regard for children other than Winton Woods children, yet these same people on occasion seem to get disproportionately offended if they feel that someone else isn't showing regard for Winton Woods children. As a Winton Woods parent, I believe we need to make an effort to change this. All sides need to realize that all the children in our community matter, and all the schools in our community matter, and this should be a "we" discussion rather than an "us-and-them" discussion. We are all part of this same community, and we are all responsible as a community for all the children in our community.
That particular comment did rub me the wrong way, too, and I was a bit surprised by it because ThreeHats has always struck me as a thoughtful person on this forum. (I do not know ThreeHats' identity in real life.) I don't know if I would go so far as to call it "stupid" - maybe "careless" in that it is likely to turn people off rather than winning them over. We Winton Woods parents shouldn't say "All of the Catholic schools are not my concern" just as the Catholic school parents shouldn't say "All of the Winton Woods schools are not my concern." We need to think broader, not just about our own concerns, in order to build a strong, supportive community. If everyone is looking out for just their children, then we'll never find a solution that unites the community. But if everyone has all the children in mind, we can surely find some common ground on how to meet their educational needs even if we don't agree on everything.
OK, people, if no one responds and my parents don't get more information, they are going to do their thing that drives me nuts - each vote for a different candidate to basically void out each other's votes. ;-) Personally, I'm hoping that someone can provide some facts that support the Democratic candidate. (Please don't attack me, my Republican friends.)
A week ago, I asked for some information on this topic since we don't get the postcards delivered to our house but we heard about them. At the time, I was asking for my own knowledge (and my husband's knowledge) since we live in the school district and the district board president is in this political race, but now I am asking because my parents are asking me about it, and they do get the mailers and they will actually be voting on the issue. So what is going on? My parents asked me about "election fraud" that they read about it one of the mailers, and they came to me because they thought I might be able to provide some insight, but I have no information. This particular race sounds like a mess, and I'd like to cut through all the muck-throwing and just get to the facts. Can someone please provide facts, data, or websites (legitimate sources, please, no muck-throwing) that I can share with my parents so they can make an educated decision on how they want to vote?