Toledo Talk - 2006-07 School Report Card

From jr's workspace

2006-07 School Report Card

Ohio Department of Education sources of info:

Home Page
Local Report Card Search - for fancy PDF files
Building and District Search - for HTML pages
State/Local Report Cards and Resources
Local Report Card Info
Guide for Ohio's 2006-2007 Report Card System - (.DOC file) - This will or should help explain how to interpret the report card.
Expenditure and Revenue data

Old report card topics

Past Toledo Talk report card threads:

TPS results

Report cards released in August for the previous school year:

2002: report card showed TPS met 5 of 27 academic standards (.18) Academic Emergency
2003: 6 of 22 (.27) Academic Emergency
2004: 7 of 18 (.39) Continous Improvement
2005: 4 of 23 (.17) Continous Improvement
2006: 6 of 25 (.24) Continous Improvement
2007: 5 of 30 (.17) Academic Watch

TPS 2006-2007 AYP

Adequate Yearly Progress

To meet the federal AYP requirements, every student group must be at or above the annual goals or make improvement over last year. Graduation or attendance goals must be met for the district as a whole.

Reading Participation Goal: Met
Mathematics Participation Goal: Met
Reading Proficiency Goal: Not Met
Mathematics Proficiency Goal: Not Met
Attendance Goal: Met
Graduation Goal: Met

Overall AYP: Not Met

TPS 2006-2007 PI

Performance Index Score

The Performance Index Score reflects the achievement of every tested student. The score is a weighted average of all tested subjects in grades 3-8 and 10. The most weight is given to the advanced students (1.2), and the weights decrease for each performance level. This creates a scale of 0 to 120 points, with 100 being the goal. Looking at the Performance Index Score over time shows trends in district achievement.

PI over time :

2006-2007 - 79.1
2005-2006 - 80.4
2004-2005 - 76.5

TPS Academic Watch???

If only looking at the number of academic standards TPS met, which was 5 of 30, TPS would be rated Academic Emergency. But the state provides a couple of chances for the poor peforming school districts to appear to be doing better than they really are. That would be AYP and PI.

If a school district is Academic Emergency based upon the number of indicators met, but the district meets AYP, the lowest the district can be rated is Continuous Improvement. This is how TPS got the Continuous Improvement rating after the 2004 and 2005 report cards.

If a school district is Academic Emergency based upon the number of indicators met, and the district fails to meet AYP, but the district scores at least an 80.0 on the PI, the lowest the district can be rated is Continous Improvement. This was TPS's situation last year when TPS did not meet AYP but scored 80.4 on the PI. A year ago, TPS was 0.5 away from Academic Watch.

Rating definitions

I have not yet found the rating definitions for the 2006-2007 report card. All I could find on the ODE Web site was 2005-2006 info:

2005-2006 Ohio School District Rating Definitions

Excerpts:

A school that meets AYP can be rated no lower than Continuous Improvement.

The 2005-2006 designations [ for districts] are determined according to the text and list below:

Excellent districts meet 24 or 25 indicators, or 100 or above on the Performance Index (PI).
Effective meet 19 to 23 indicators or score 90 to 99.9 on the PI.
Continuous Improvement meets 13 to 18 indicators or 80 to 89.9 on the PI OR they meet AYP (the lowest a district can be rated if they meet AYP is CI).
Academic Watch districts meet 9 to 12 indicators or score 70 to 79.9 and have missed AYP.
Academic Emergency districts are those that met 8 or fewer indicators, scored less than 70 and missed AYP.

An Academic Watch or Emergency district or school gets to move up one designation by improving the performance index score over time. An improvement of 10 points in two years with at least three points coming in the most recent year moves a school or district up one designation in the current year.

Schools receive their designations, in part, based on the percentage of indicators that apply to their school (rather than out of 25 as indicated for districts).

Excellent schools meet 94% or more of applicable indicators or 100 or above on the Performance Index (PI).
Effective meet 75% to 93.9% of applicable indicators or score 90 to 99.9 on the PI.
Continuous Improvement meet 50% to 74.9% of applicable indicators or 80 to 89.9 on the PI OR they meet AYP (the lowest a district can be rated if they meet AYP is CI).
Academic Watch schools meet 31% to 49.9% of applicable indicators or score 70 to 79.9 and have missed AYP. Academic
Emergency schools are those that met 30.9% or fewer indicators, scored less than a 70 and missed AYP.

More TPS testing info

3rd Grade

Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 3rd Grade Reading Achievement Test (2006-07) 65.2
Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 3rd Grade Reading Achievement Test (2005-06) 57.7
Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 3rd Grade Reading Achievement Test (2004-05) 66.4

Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 3rd Grade Math Achievement Test (2006-07) 67.8
Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 3rd Grade Math Achievement Test (2005-06) 56.4
Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 3rd Grade Math Achievement Test (2004-05) 47.8

4th Grade

Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 4th Grade Reading Achievement Test (2006-07) 65.4
Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 4th Grade Reading Achievement Test (2005-06) 60.3
Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 4th Grade Reading Achievement Test (2004-05) 62.9

Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 4th Grade Math Achievement Test (2006-07) 57.9
Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 4th Grade Math Achievement Test (2005-06) 40.2

Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 4th Grade Writing Achievement Test (2006-07) 74.8
Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 4th Grade Writing Achievement Test (2005-06) 74.4
Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 4th Grade Writing Achievement Test (2004-05) 65.5

5th Grade

Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 5th Grade Reading Achievement Test (2006-07) 64.2
Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 5th Grade Reading Achievement Test (2005-06) 57.4
Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 5th Grade Reading Achievement Test (2004-05) 59.5

Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 5th Grade Math Achievement Test (2006-07) 41.3
Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 5th Grade Math Achievement Test (2005-06) 40.2

Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 5th Grade Social Studies Achievement Test (2006-07) 39.6

Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 5th Grade Science Achievement Test (2006-07) 46.2

6th Grade

Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 6th Grade Reading Achievement Test (2006-07) 57.0
Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 6th Grade Reading Achievement Test (2005-06) 71.8

Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 6th Grade Math Achievement Test (2006-07) 49.9
Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 6th Grade Math Achievement Test (2005-06) 46.1

7th Grade

Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 7th Grade Reading Achievement Test (2006-07) 51.5
Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 7th Grade Reading Achievement Test (2005-06) 56.2

Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 7th Grade Math Achievement Test (2006-07) 39.7
Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 7th Grade Math Achievement Test (2005-06) 36.4
Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 7th Grade Math Achievement Test (2004-05) 28.6

Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 7th Grade Writing Achievement Test (2006-07) 63.4

8th Grade

Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 8th Grade Reading Achievement Test (2006-07) 59.2
Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 8th Grade Reading Achievement Test (2005-06) 53.2
Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 8th Grade Reading Achievement Test (2004-05) 55.8

Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 8th Grade Math Achievement Test (2006-07) 41.1
Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 8th Grade Math Achievement Test (2005-06) 36.0
Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 8th Grade Math Achievement Test (2004-05) 25.8

Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 8th Grade Social Studies Achievement Test (2006-07) 21.8

Percentage of Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the 8th Grade Science Achievement Test (2006-07) 30.9

10th Grade

Percentage of 10th Grade Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the Social Studies Ohio Graduation Test (2006-07) 63.7
Percentage of 10th Grade Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the Social Studies Ohio Graduation Test (2005-06) 64.6
Percentage of 10th Grade Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the Social Studies Ohio Graduation Test (2004-05) 67.9

Percentage of 10th Grade Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the Math Ohio Graduation Test (2006-07) 64.9
Percentage of 10th Grade Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the Math Ohio Graduation Test (2005-06) 63.4
Percentage of 10th Grade Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the Math Ohio Graduation Test (2004-05) 70.3

Percentage of 10th Grade Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the Reading Ohio Graduation Test (2006-07) 78.6
Percentage of 10th Grade Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the Reading Ohio Graduation Test (2005-06) 80.4
Percentage of 10th Grade Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the Reading Ohio Graduation Test (2004-05) 90.6

Percentage of 10th Grade Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the Writing Ohio Graduation Test (2006-07) 85.2
Percentage of 10th Grade Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the Writing Ohio Graduation Test (2005-06) 79.1
Percentage of 10th Grade Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the Writing Achievement Test (2004-05) 82.7

Percentage of 10th Grade Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the Science Ohio Graduation Test (2006-07) 54.2
Percentage of 10th Grade Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the Science Ohio Graduation Test (2005-06) 50.3
Percentage of 10th Grade Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the Science Ohio Graduation Test (2004-05) 52.9

11th Grade

Percentage of 11th Grade Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the Social Studies Ohio Graduation Test (2006-07) 80.5
Percentage of 11th Grade Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the Social Studies Ohio Graduation Test (2005-06) 81.8

Percentage of 11th Grade Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the Math Ohio Graduation Test (2006-07) 80.8
Percentage of 11th Grade Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the Math Ohio Graduation Test (2005-06) 86.1

Percentage of 11th Grade Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the Reading Ohio Graduation Test (2006-07) 88.3
Percentage of 11th Grade Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the Reading Ohio Graduation Test (2005-06) 92.6

Percentage of 11th Grade Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the Writing Ohio Graduation Test (2006-07) 89.2
Percentage of 11th Grade Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the Writing Ohio Graduation Test (2005-06) 91.2

Percentage of 11th Grade Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the Science Ohio Graduation Test (2006-07) 70.9
Percentage of 11th Grade Students Who Scored Proficient or Higher on the Science Ohio Graduation Test (2005-06) 74.2

Attendance Rate

Student Attendance Rate (2006-07) 92.3
Student Attendance Rate (2005-06) 93.2
Student Attendance Rate (2004-05) 93.2

Graduation Rate

Student Graduation Rate (2005-06) 90.5
Student Graduation Rate (2004-05) 80.2
Student Graduation Rate (2003-04) 76.6

PI and AYP

District Performance Index Score (2006-07) 79.1
District Performance Index Score (2005-06) 80.4
District Performance Index Score (2004-05) 76.5
District's AYP Determination (2006-07 applied to school year 2007-08) Not Met

Area School Ratings

A school district's 2006-2007 rating and the number of academic indicators met out of a possible 30:

Fulton County

District Name	Rating	Standards Met	AYP	PI Score
Archbold-Area	Excellent	29	Met	103.9
Evergreen	Excellent	29	Met	100.1
Gorham Fayette	Effective	23	Not Met	96.7
Pettisville	Excellent	29	Met	106.2
Pike-Delta-York	Effective	26	Met	97.4
Swanton	Effective	21	Met	94.1
Wauseon	Excellent	28	Not Met	100.5

Lucas County

District Name	Rating	Standards Met	AYP Met	PI Score
Anthony Wayne	Excellent	29	Met	101.6
Maumee	Effective	26	Not Met	98.7
Oregon	Effective	24	Met	95.2
Ottawa Hills	Excellent	30	Met	108.5
Springfield	Effective	25	Met	96.1
Sylvania	Excellent	29	Not Met	102.2
Toledo	Academic Watch	5	Not Met	79.1
Washington Local	Effective	22	Not Met	94.3

Ottawa County

District Name	Rating	Standards Met	AYP Met	PI Score
Benton Carroll Salem	Effective	26	Not Met	97.1
Danbury	Effective	23	Met	94.6
Genoa Area	Effective	24	Met	95.6
Port Clinton	Continuous Improvement	24	Not Met	95.2
Put-In-Bay	Effective	2	Met	98.5

Wood County

District Name	Rating	Standards Met	AYP Met	PI Score
Bowling Green	Effective	28	Not Met	99
Eastwood	Effective	27	Not Met	99.8
Elmwood	Effective	25	Not Met	95.7
Lake	Effective	20	Met	92
North Baltimore	Effective	21	Not Met	92.7
Northwood	Effective	28	Not Met	97.8
Otsego	Effective	24	Met	95.9
Perrysburg	Excellent	29	Not Met	103.1
Rossford	Effective	22	Not Met	95.2

TPS Building Ratings

Aug 14, 2007 Blade story

As a whole last year, Scott and Libbey high schools each rated “academic watch.” For the first time, the district divided the test data for each of the four “small schools” housed within those two high schools. Scott’s Allied Health school and Libbey’s Cowboy Academy and SMART school reached “continuous improvement.” The other five small schools were either “academic watch” or “academic emergency.”

Building Name	Rating
Allied Health Academy High School	Continuous Improvement
Arlington Elementary	Effective
Arts and Media Academy High School	Academic Watch
Beverly Elementary	Excellent
Birmingham Elementary	Continuous Improvement
Bowsher High School	Effective
BTI Academy High School	Academic Watch
Burroughs Elementary	Continuous Improvement
Byrnedale Junior High	Continuous Improvement
Chase Elementary	Academic Emergency
Cherry Elementary	Continuous Improvement
Cowboy Academy of Business High School	Continuous Improvement
Crossgates Elementary	Effective
Cummings-Zucker High School	Academic Emergency
DeVeaux Junior High	Academic Watch
East Side Central Elementary	Academic Watch
East Toledo Junior High	Continuous Improvement
Edgewater Elementary	Continuous Improvement
Ella P. Stewart Academy Elementary	Academic Watch
Elmhurst Elementary	Effective
Fulton Elementary	Academic Watch
Garfield Elementary	Continuous Improvement
Gateway Academy High School	Academic Watch
Glendale-Feilbach Elementary	Continuous Improvement
Grove Patterson Academy Elementary	Continuous Improvement
Hale Elementary	Academic Emergency
Harvard Elementary	Excellent
Hawkins Elementary	Continuous Improvement
Human Services Academy High School	Academic Emergency
Humanities Academy High School	Academic Watch
Jones Junior High	Academic Emergency
Keyser Elementary	Continuous Improvement
Lagrange Elementary	Academic Emergency
Larchmont Elementary	Continuous Improvement
Leverette Junior High	Academic Emergency
Libbey High School	Not Rated
Lincoln Academy for Boys Elementary	Academic Watch
Longfellow Elementary	Continuous Improvement
Marshall Elementary	Academic Watch
Mckinley Elementary	Academic Watch
McTigue Junior High	Academic Watch
Navarre Elementary	Continuous Improvement
Newbury Elementary	Academic Watch
Oakdale Elementary	Continuous Improvement
Old Orchard Elementary	Academic Watch
Old West End Academy Elementary	Effective
Ottawa River Elementary	Continuous Improvement
Pickett Elementary	Academic Emergency
Raymer Elementary	Continuous Improvement
Reynolds Elementary	Academic Watch
Riverside Elementary	Continuous Improvement
Robinson Junior High	Academic Emergency
Rogers High School	Continuous Improvement
Scott High School	Not Rated
Sherman Elementary	Academic Emergency
SMART Academy High School	Continuous Improvement
Start High School	Effective
Toledo Technology Academy High School	Excellent
Waite High School	Continuous Improvement
Walbridge Elementary	Academic Watch
Whittier Elementary	Academic Watch
Woodward High School	Academic Watch

Building Totals

Excellent 3
Effective 6
Continuous Improvement 23
Academic Watch 18
Academic Emergency 10

TPS Levy success

Nov 2002: new building levy passed
Nov 2003: renewal levy passed
Nov 2004: renewal levy passed
Nov 2005: renewal levy passed
Nov 2006: no levy on the ballot

School Spending

FY04 data posted by historymike.

Per-pupil by district

Fulton County

District	FY05	FY06
Archbold-Area	$8,818	$9,800
Evergreen	$8,242	$8,436
Gorham Fayette	$9,184	$10,246
Pettisville	$7,530	$8,390
Pike-Delta-York	$8,094	$8,883
Swanton	$7,077	$8,135
Wauseon	$6,637	$7,234

Lucas County

District	FY05	FY06
Anthony Wayne	$7,923	$8,169
Maumee	$10,116	$10,022
Oregon	$9,678	$10,979
Ottawa Hills	$11,504	$11,639
Springfield	$8,977	$8,912
Sylvania	$8,980	$9,400
Toledo	$10,604	$11,202
Washington Local	$9,682	$9,993

Ottawa County

District	FY05	FY06
Benton Carroll Salem	$9,374	$9,900
Danbury	$12,417	$12,028
Genoa Area	$6,975	$7,933
Port Clinton	$10,155	$10,793
Put-In-Bay	$23,090	$25,749

Wood County

District	FY05	FY06
Bowling Green	$9,346	$10,180
Eastwood	$8,265	$8,414
Elmwood	$7,727	$8,560
Lake	$6,824	$6,720
North Baltimore	$8,319	$8,946
Northwood	$9,151	$9,076
Otsego	$7,837	$8,123
Perrysburg	$8,582	$9,194
Rossford	$10,516	$10,816

Source from the Expenditure and Revenue data page at the ODE Web site.

Tuition at Toledo Central Catholic High School for the 2007-2008 school year is around $7,000.

Teacher Salaries

From a Sep 13, 2004 Toledo Talk posting titled Teacher's pay that pointed to a Blade Sep 13, 2004 story titled Teachers' pay varies widely by district

My comments about the Blade story, which posted its salary info in an image that was in the newspaper but is not on the Web site.

TPS pays a higher starting salary than Ottawa Hills for teachers with a Bachelors degree. But OH has a much higher average salary at $60,621 versus TPS's $45,968. With a Master's degree, the starting salaries between the two are about the same. With just a Bachelors degree and 27 years experience, TPS pays $55,577 and OH pays $53,091. With a Masters degree and 27 years experience, OH pays $70,788 and TPS pays $60,595. From the salary figures, it appears OH as a greater relative percentage of experienced teachers with a Masters degree than TPS. The average salary for Ottawa Hills is tops in northwest Ohio and ninth highest in Ohio.

From the Blade story:

Toledo Public Schools, which employs about 2,500 full-time teachers, pays $32,697 annually to a teacher straight out of college. That figure is on the higher end when compared to other school districts in northwest Ohio. Williams County's Bryan City Schools, for example, starts a teacher at $26,205 a year.

There is a stark difference between the starting salaries paid to teachers in public schools versus parochial schools. College graduates who get a job teaching at a Catholic school will earn much less, said Jack Altenburger, superintendent of education for the Toledo Catholic Diocese. Catholic high schools in the metro Toledo area paid an average starting salary of $24,506 last year. On the elementary-school level, the average starting pay was $20,925.

"Overall, our goal has to be 75 to 80 percent of what the local [public] district pays," Mr. Altenburger said. "On average, our schools pay 65 to 70 [percent] of what the public school district pays."

Michigan teachers on average took home nearly $10,000 more than their Ohio counterparts. The average teacher salary in that state was $54,020 for the 2002-03 school year, which was the second-highest in the nation behind California.

What about parents?

From a Jun 29, 2004 Toledo Talk thread titled More evidence that parents are at fault? that pointed to a Jun 26, 2004 Blade story titled Bulk of TPS students ignore free test help

Free test help? I don't think so. Taxpayers paid for the "free" help that went mostly ignored by the students/parents. From the 2004 Blade story:

When the state gave Toledo Public Schools $380,000 to prepare high school students for the Ohio Graduation Test, administrators were eager to help the students get ready. They scheduled Saturday sessions, before and after-school workshops, and summer programs. All were free. But just a handful of students turned out for the programs, school administrators said.

At the East Toledo school, about 15 students are attending a three-week, half-day summer session focusing on all areas of the test. An additional 20 students took advantage of some before and after-school tutoring in March and April, with another 30 students in Saturday sessions during February, said Robin Wheatley, assistant principal of curriculum and instruction. But those 70 students were among hundreds invited.

"I was extremely disappointed," Miss Wheatley said. "I sent letters to the parents saying, 'Your student refused to be tutored.'"

Teachers called parents at all times of the day to inform them about the free summer session and sent letters explaining the test and the extra help students could get.

At Scott High School, about 46 of the roughly 180 invited students attended the summer sessions that focused on mathematics and reading, said Jose Hernandez, the summer program coordinator. "We send out a letter to parents. We call parents. We talk to parents at freshman meetings," he said. "We have incentive packages - T-shirts and things like that. Right now, we're getting the kids who really want to improve."

Toledo Blade stories

Aug 15, 2007 Most suburban schools hold steady on new tests; but 3 local districts fall grade lower

Aug 15, 2007 Charters fare poorly in state report cards

Statewide, there were 182 schools, both traditional and charter, in academic emergency, said Mitchell Chester, senior associate superintendent of policy and accountability for the Ohio Department of Education. Charter schools in Ohio now make up more than 46 percent of the state's failing schools. Mr. Chester said the law has teeth to hold poor-performing charter schools accountable. "A charter school that can't get above a poor level of performance after three years [can] be shut down," he said.

What about applying that same line of thinking to public schools? Why focus only on charters?

Aug 16, 2007 Toledo's poorer schools did worse on tests

The following schools in the Toledo Public system received a grade of F in the state’s report card:

Chase Elementary
Hale Elementary
Lagrange Elementary
Pickett Elementary
Sherman Elementary
Jones Junior High
Leverette Junior High
Robinson Junior High
Mayfair Achievement school
Human Services Academy at Scott High School.

In addition, 18 schools in the Toledo Public system received a D rating.

These people who want poor-performing charters to shut down, are they also demanding that poor-performing public schools be closed, and the students given vouchers to go elsewhere?

When the anti-education crowd wants a charter to close, they are pretending to care about a child's education. But where is their concern when it comes to poor-performing public schools?

The same anti-education crowd that wants charters to close are also opposed to vouchers. The anti-education crowd would prefer students remain in poor-performing public schools without ever having a chance at a better education. The anti-education crowd opposes school-choice.

Look at the explanation for Toledo's failing public schools:

“I think there is pretty consistent research that shows socio-economic status impacts education in a number of ways,” Mr. Foley said. “The challenge is for schools to provide programs to beat those odds.”

So new programs are needed for the failing public schools, but for charters, the answer is to close them. Some charters are also serving kids from low-income families. And apparently, some charters are serving kids who were ignored by TPS, especially special-needs children.

Jack Ford's IEP idea

From a Jul 10, 2007 Toledo Journal story

[Ford] wants to help TPS get a new general operating levy passed, take a lead role in an initiative to reduce the dropout rate among African American boys and help make TPS “the top district around” in developing effective Individualized Education Plans (IEP) for students with mental or physical disabilities.

The IEP idea sounds good. My question is, why hasn't TPS been doing this all along? Is the purpose of Ford's IEP idea meant to enable TPS to compete with the charters who are serving the special needs children who are currently ignored by TPS?

School vouchers

Dec 20, 2006 Toledo Talk thread titled School voucher program expanded that pointed to a Dec 20, 2006 Blade story.

Students in 19 academically struggling Toledo Public Schools buildings, up from five currently, could apply for scholarships of $4,250 through eighth grade and $5,900 for high school toward tuition at the public, private, or religious schools of their choice.

The following school buildings have been in academic emergency or academic watch for two of the last three years, making their students eligible to apply for vouchers:

TOLEDO
Chase Elementary
Cherry Elementary *
Fulton Elementary
Garfield Elementary
Nathan Hale Elementary *
Jones Elementary
Lagrange Elementary
Leverette Elementary
Libbey High
Lincoln Academy for Boys
McTigue Junior High
Newbury Elementary
Pickett Elementary *
Raymer Elementary
Reynolds Elementary
Robinson Junior High
Scott High *
Sherman Elementary
Woodward High *

(*) Currently in program

SOURCE: Ohio Department of Education

[T]hree-quarters of Ohio's 14,000 school vouchers [went] unused in the program's inaugural year.

Instead of attacking the voucher program and attacking charter schools, the anti-education crowd should ask intelligent, common sense questions like:

Why have so many charter schools opened in recent years in the Toledo area?
Why are parents moving their kids from TPS to a charter?
Why do TPS schools qualify for vouchers?

You don't have to worry about the voucher program if a school building is not continually failing. You don't have to worry about charter schools if ALL TPS students are being educated.

created by jr on Aug 15, 2007 at 10:38:57 pm
updated by jr on Aug 16, 2007 at 12:34:45 pm Comments: 2

print source versions backlinks

tags: education

Comments ... #

Aug 22, 2007 Blade story

Board member Jack Ford said "radical change" has to be considered along with holding all district employees - including the superintendent - accountable for poor performance of its schools.
"In the NFL, if you don't win, you are out. I think we need to move in that direction," Mr. Ford told Superintendent John Foley.
Mr. Ford said Mr. Foley needs to "get rid of some folks and he has to make it clear that the performance we had is not acceptable."

Nice job, Jack. That kind of tough talk "only" needs to be backed up with real action by 30-year TPS employee Foley.

posted by jr on Aug 22, 2007 at 11:57:12 am #

As a substitute teacher I know the students have ability at these schools. But they can't sit still, can't keep mouths shut! I think each class needs at least 2 adults, whether paras or volunteers to keep order. Then stick to the 3Rs, make them read out loud, work math problems on the black (white?) boards, they love to do this. A little old-fashioned pride in being "smarter" than fellow students is in order. There are a few students who do take pride. But many disruptive ones. Many parents do not help at all, in fact disrupt classes by promising pizza parties, bringing their kids McDonalds during class, calling their kids durng school, etc. Many parents are pain in neck. Radical change I think would be scrapping the mandated lesson plans and simply shooting for the 3R's. Look up lesson plans for country schools of 60 or 70 years ago. There was no detailed analysis of which worksheet they were doing at a specific time of day. This documentation is nuts in my judgment. Put good reading texts in students hands, let them read out loud. Let the non-readers be embarassed. If we do this, they will want to learn to read! What are we afraid of, offending students and parents? Additionally, I do not like to see so many small charter schools and Ohio Community Schools out there. How do we know what is going on there? Public education is where we all come together, say the Pledge of Allegiance, learn to get along, feel a part of our community, etc. Toledo has gone to the trouble to build beautiful schools and we have qualified teachers. Trust them to teach and quit the nitpicking about the lesson plans! And scrap all the useless waste of money on educational materials. Let little kids count on fingers. Make sure we teach them some metric system. Do you know how much a kilogram weighs in pounds? We need to know such basics.

posted by KatyaK on Aug 15, 2008 at 12:55:02 am #