Get Schooled

By WhatWillBridgetDo?

May 24, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this

Well since you posted this, care to explain why the AJC hasn’t followed up on the FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS on the discipline at APS (Bridget claimed it was because “the APS reporter was on vacation”) but the AJC seems to be able to find the resources to report on this? What’s the agenda, as it sure doesn’t seem to be objective reporting.

By JustMe

May 24, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this

The major flaw in this (and it’s already been pointed out before) is that making all schools the same does not mean that they are all better. It does mean that the “good” schools will be pulled down to some average and the “bad” schools will be pulled up to some average.

I cannot believe that APS and DeKalb are willing to sacrifice the “good” schools like that - but I guess that they are!

By decaturparent

May 24, 2007 1:36 PM | Link to this

Well, I’m biased, but small schools work very well around here. We have some of the highest achieving schools in the state and do it with all except maybe one of our schools being Title I schools.

At a small school, the principal knows everyone. Even teachers know most of the kids outside of their own classrooms. Parents also get to know a very large percentage of the children in the school. In small schools, kids can distinguish themselves from the masses, create their own identity and be recognized for it. Having people know who you are and what you are about goes a long way toward improving achievement and attitude. It also goes a long way toward kids not being able to get away with being idiots so much.

Again, I’m biased and a bit spoiled I guess, but I can’t imagine attending a school where there are 2000 - 3000 other children in the building. How in the world would anyone know who you were unless you were the football star?

By jim d

May 24, 2007 2:17 PM | Link to this

The small school concept was the origional version of public schools in this country. Those of us old enough and fortunate enough to have attended one or more of these schools can attest to their success. I congratulate APS for bringing Carver into the ranks of being a successful school.

Likewise the mega-school concept has proven a dismal failure when it comes right down to it. Unfortuately it will take the politico’s at least another generation to figure out the data that they have documenting this. Meanwhile—we lose another generation of kids to ineffective methods.

By JustMe

May 24, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this

decaturparent -

I prefer small schools…

However, I am not sure that it is the size that really matters. Give me a mega-school with great teachers and motivated students any day over a small school with bad teachers and students that don’t care.

It may be easier to achieve in a smaller school, but I don’t think that it is impossible in a mega-school.

By catlady

May 24, 2007 3:31 PM | Link to this

In addition to anecdotal evidence, research with national data strongly suggests that small schools’ students disproportionately persist to get a high school diploma. Controling for family income, etc., produces even stronger results. Yet, we persist in cramming as many in there as we can, and then bemoaning the dropout rate, pregnancy rate, crime rate…. Economies of scale just don’t work very well when you are talking about people, but so many of our decision makers, scared for their jobs, refuse to say this. Small schools work because of student and parent engagement and investment and because of accountability.

By Lee

May 25, 2007 8:16 AM | Link to this

We’ve blogged this topic before. Yes, I think most would agree that small to medium sized schools are preferable to the huge, mega-schools that seem to predominate the metro area. However, it does have a price.

Did anyone else notice that the article stated that it cost $42 million for Carver to break up it’s school into smaller campuses? And they’re also predicting another $60 million in the first five years to take this program systemwide? Another $2 million for the transition staff…

I’d like to see these numbers factored into a cost per student analysis - before and after.

By Jeff

May 25, 2007 8:39 AM | Link to this

Smaller schools cost:

Building. (and related, such as HVAC/ electricity/ water/ phone, etc)

From what I’m thinking right now, all the other stuff would amount to the same price, just in 5 locations rather than 1. (such as teachers, secretaries, admin, even things such as team uniforms. A current mega-school might have a population of 2000 and 200 in the band. Split it into four schools at 500 each, you might have 50 in the band. Same 2000 students, same 200 in the band, but it is 50 x 4 rather than 2000 x 1. I THINK the same principal would apply to virtually everything other than the building itself, and even the “building extras” I mentioned such as utlities may fall in line with this…)

By jim d

May 25, 2007 9:00 AM | Link to this

Jeff,

the only exception I see is that the schools would still want the same number of adminstrators at each school. (which would add tremendous costs to smaller schools)

By Jeff

May 25, 2007 9:20 AM | Link to this

jim:

my question to that would be:

why do you need the same amount of administration to handle 600 total people as 3000???

By Ernest

May 25, 2007 9:26 AM | Link to this

Lee and Jeff bring up points mentioned many times before. The question reamins, would taxpayers be willing to pay more for smaller schools? I think not. Hats off to Decatur taxpayers for willing to pay more for smaller schools.

I do like the ‘school within a school’ concept as an option. It should be considered for environments where ‘academic uplifting’ is needed however there should not be attempts to ‘bring down or equalize’ with schools that are already succeeding. Any perception of this could undermine all schools.

In DeKalb, this concept will be used with the School of the Arts. It will move back into Avondale HS and will have it’s own entrance and administation. As Jeff wondered with extra-curriculars, these will be two separate schools thus they will not allow ‘cross overs’ from one school to the other.

By OldSchool

May 25, 2007 9:30 AM | Link to this

If the smaller schools were actually housed in the original large school building, utilities would be no different. Think: schools within a school. It could work…if teachers are willing to relocate their rooms.

When I was in 8th grade, we were housed in one wing of the regular high school. All of our regular classes were clustered in that wing. We took band, chorus, PE,other electives and lunch with the rest of the school where appropriate. The only negative I could ever see in the arrangement was that we were called “sub-freshmen.”

Since that time, we’ve tried a freshman academy but didn’t really pursue it to refine it. I’d love to see a “trades academy” where students would wear the uniforms of the job (mechanic, plumber, etc) and where the academics (math, language arts, etc.) would be relevant to the career area. Throw in some business/entrepenural courses and you’d have a pretty dang good educational program.

By Joy

May 25, 2007 9:43 AM | Link to this

School funding is basically the same throughout this state, if not the country.

Schools get x amount of administrators per x amount of students. (I’m not sure of the correct numbers, but I think it’s 1 administrator for every 500 students.) It’s the same with guidance counselors and teachers, except for varying numbers. Anything above and beyond what the federal guidelines are have to be made up by the local school districts. If the local school districts feel that there needs to be more school administrators, armed guards, teachers, arts classes, etc, then there will be.

Schools do get additional funding for specific populations of students (special ed, gifted, ESOL, Title One, etc.)

By the way….smaller buildings are more energy efficient and it’s easier to do “crowd” control because teachers and administrators get to know the kids better. When less energy is expelled on “crowd control”, more actual teaching and learning can take place.

By high school teacher

May 25, 2007 9:45 AM | Link to this

Jeff and jimd,

aren’t the academies all a part of Carver High? The article said that Carver had a state playoff team for the first time in 20 years. Perhaps the students unite in the areas of marching band and sports.

The article also mentions a principal of each academy, not principals.

Eight years ago, I was fortunate enough to open a new school - the first year we only had ninth graders and tenth graders who wanted to attend - about 450 kids. It was awesome! I knew every student in the school. We had about 35 faculty members. Other schools were envious of the family atmosphere that we had, both with the students and among the faculty. When I left that school two years ago, the enrollment was over 1300, the faculty was over 100, and the family feeling was gone. In short, I think smaller schools are better. I really like the academy idea that Carver has implemented.

By Jeff

May 25, 2007 9:45 AM | Link to this

OldSchool:

Randolph was like that as far as the ENTIRE MS is in the same building with the HS, just a different wing. Same facilities/ teachers used for PE/ Band/ Cafeteria/ Media Center.

Let me tell you this from experience:

THAT DON’T FLY!!! The MS kids were trying to act too much like the HS kids in every way, since they rode the same bus and saw them in the hall when we were going to lunch/ PE/ assemblies.

Now, a school-within-a-school where all students are the same basic age (ES, MS, or HS) could work. Mixing ages DOES NOT.

By SET

May 25, 2007 9:48 AM | Link to this

Since there is tremendous motive to fake results I’m skeptical of this report.

I find Lee’s comment to be on the money.

The school districts should be free to experiment. Maybe something will magically convert out failed urban secondary schools to what they once were.

Since we can’t return the schools demographically to what they once were we have to find an educational model that works. Our government for PC reasons is forcing the schools to pretend that all people are created equal. They’re not.

So I take these stories of magical improvement with a grain of salt.

By Lee

May 25, 2007 10:03 AM | Link to this

I guess my point is Carver was an existing school. They broke it up into five campuses. It cost them $42 million in renovations. $42 million for what? I mean, my county built a new high school a few years ago for $23 million.

I don’t think we’re getting the whole story here.

By OldSchool

May 25, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this

Ok, Jeff, it worked for us but I can understand how it might not work with today’s students.

But I still think that schools within schools can work. And I still believe that math, language arts, science and even social studies can be made more relevant and real world for the “kids in the middle” that are more likely to fill the 80% of the jobs that require some technical training beyond high school but do not require a college degree.

By Lee

May 25, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this

One more comment, years ago, when public schools worked, they grouped students by ability. We also had options such as college prep or vocational. We then went through the politically correct period of “everyone is the same and let’s put them through the college prep curriculum.”

Now, we have Gifted, Honors, and AP classes - which essentially groups students by ability again.

Carver’s five different “academies” are again, offering students a choice and group by ability (interest).

The irony is amazing…..

By JustMe

May 25, 2007 10:15 AM | Link to this

Lee,

Come on, man! You know that Atlanta has to pay more for everything….

By JustMe

May 25, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this

Lee,

I agree with your last comment 100%.

Some students have no interest in college but may want to become carpenters, plumbers, etc. So, why should they get a college prep diploma?

The State of GA needs to do more to encourage diversity in diploma choices rather than try to force everyone towards college prep.

At my high school, the wood shop is closed up. There are great machines there sitting idle. Why? Because no courses are offered in shop because that doesn’t lead to a college prep diploma. [I was also told that the school system was afraid of liability. But, that didn’t stop anyone when I was in school!]

By jim d

May 25, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this

Shucks just me,

I find it rather diconcerting that we agree on this one. After all, when we start agreeing how will I know when I’m right?

By regrettedmychoice

May 25, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

I chose not to take college prep classes at my highschool many years ago. My parents were divorcing and didn’t even notice and my teachers allowed didn’t care either. Though my friends were appalled. I was too young and stupid to understand the long term consequences of what I was doing.

Some years later I decided to go to college after all. I had to take about a year of college classes for no credit just to get accepted into my local junior college.

I found it was too late to really learn higher level math. It was like that part of my brain was just not able to retain it anymore. And there was simply too much I didn’t know. Geometry still brings out the stupid in me.

That is what is wrong with not insisting everyone take a college prep curriculum. (Though not necessarily an Honors or AP curriculum.) They might change their minds later and doors will have closed that they never even knew were open.

Let them go to technical or vocational school after highschool. Then if they change their minds in adulthood, they can still go to a university and earn a degree and the vo-tech degree will be a nice bonus.

By jim d

May 25, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this

Regrets,

Look at the valuable lesson you learned from making the choice. Why in heavens name would you feel that choice should be denied others?

How much harder do you think your enrollment to continue your education would have been had you not had a high school diploma? Do you think that if CP classes at the HS level remain more rigorous that more or fewer students will graduate? Forcing a student into a CP curriculum is akin to condeming some of them to mediocrity.

By JustMe

May 25, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this

A diploma choice should not be left up to the student, alone. It is an important decision that should include the councelor, the parent(s)/guardian(s), and the student.

Regrets, I am sorry that your parents and councelors failed you.

However, how the decision is made is a different discussion from if a decision is made available. IMHO, the State of GA should make diploma choices beyond college prep available.

By regrettedmychoice

May 25, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this

jimd I did not get a highschool diploma. So I fail to follow your reasoning. Like most of my drop out peers, it was not a desire to be a plumber that kept me from succeeding in highschool. It was far more complicated than that. But in a nutshell, I was depressed and without vision for the future.

I got a GED. It was a long, hard road into the educated, middle class from where I stood at 17. Most of my similary situated peers did not succeed in the end as I did.

And yes, I would protect others from making the same choices if possible.

There are other ways to keep students in school without condemning them to the lifetime of mediocrity that most will face if they are not educated and entering adulthood with all their options open. They will have a lifetime of independence after highschool to falter without our complicity.

By jim d

May 25, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

I see,

Kudo’s to you for your determination.

The bottom line though is that in your particular case you made the choice and would have dropped out regardless of the curriculum. What I’m saying is that not everyone finds themselves in that position. What I’ve learned over a lifetime is that success tends to breed success. Should a student have difficulty with learning a challenging CP curriculum should we then just thorw them away or should other options be made available. Our President, although I don’t agree with him often, has said that all children can learn. I whole heartedly agree with that statement. However where we seem to come apart is that I know that all students will not learn the same things, in the same ways, so why should we expect them to? I also realize that a student falling short of those unrealistic expectations will easily become discouraged (as you may have) and drop out. While our goals may be the same, to keep kids in school and provide them a meaningfull education, It appears our methods of accomplishing that are worlds apart.

By WhatWillBridgetDo?

May 25, 2007 1:47 PM | Link to this

SET should be skeptical; when 5 APS schools had a very suspicious gain in CRCT scores in one year (scores that the only board member with teaching experience said could only have happened by cheating) AJC higher ups squashed any follow up from reporter Paul Donsky.

Patti who ran this blog earlier, had a report in the AJC about an APS school whose discipline numbers indicated no serious assaults or batteries, despite the fact that the Atlanta Police Dept. logs showed they came to the school over fifty times, in many cases to deal with assaults and the like.

Again, the AJC higher ups killed off any follow up. Bridget’s excuse on this blog was that there was no follow up because “the APS reporter is on leave”. But then she turns right around and files the Carver story. Very interesting.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the ones running the blog now show up and say “they don’t get pressure” like Bridget tried to imply (Creative Loafing, the alternative weekly in Atlanta has run numerous items on stories the AJC higher ups have killed; apparently many AJC reporters like to vent to them)

But what those running the blog won’t address, if they come on here with the “we aren’t pressured” party line, is why two reporters, who uncovered very explosive stories, stories that could enhance their reputation as reporters, stories that would indicate a widespread pattern of unethical at best behavior, would just voluntarily chose not to follow up on them?

Let’s see if they can answer that!

By SET

May 25, 2007 4:37 PM | Link to this

So it’s all as I thought.

The fix is in. Even the AJC has decided to artificially make things look good.

Wonder what they make of this blog… We bloggers are not politically correct.

I do wonder just how much freedom Bridget and her co-workers have to uncover the truth about the public schools and reveal things that the schools will either lie about or conceal. And it’s not that such behavior is ever unexpected in any large organization - like the DOJ under Gonzales.

I would venture a guess that at some point this blog will become a problem and AJC may want to end it. Way too much information.

By Ernest

May 25, 2007 4:51 PM | Link to this

SET, WhatWillBridgetDo? comments do have some merit. Some schools systems are scrutinized more in the local media than others. To be clear, this isn’t to suggest those investigations aren’t worthy but there does seem to be an imbalance with regards to ‘Special Reports’.

If we look hard enough, most schools and school systems have skeletons. The stories go a long way in shaping public opinion about those areas and could impact their abilities to attract and retain business and residents. Could money be behind determining which skeletons to expose? Is there a ‘Mr. Big’ that calls the shots behind the scenes on these types of stories?

Brave New World…..

By catlady

May 25, 2007 5:32 PM | Link to this

I watch, year after year, as the students from the very small elementary school (they have about 40 in each grade) go off to the middle and high schools (the only ones in the county), and although they make up less than 10% of the entering class middle/high school class, almost all of them graduate and they make up 30% or more of the honors grads. Why? Their middle and high school years are like all the others from the bigger elementary schools. They are not from smarter or richer families. In fact, few wealthy parents live in the area. But they HAVE had parental investiture in their elementary school (when the state said, in the late 60’s that they were not going to continue to pay for upkeep of the school, the PARENTS came and painted and worked on the roof…) and EVERYONE KNOWS THE KIDS—they can’t get by with anything. The school has one principal—the only administrator. The school WORKS, whereas the big ones are pretty disfunctional, with lots more behavior issues, low achievement, etc. The little school is worth the money because the kids from there don’t end up taking our tax money for jail, welfare, illigitimate babies, etc. That, my friends, is ECONOMY.

By jim d

May 25, 2007 6:26 PM | Link to this

WWBD,Set, ernest,

We shall see what the ajc will do now that sonny has ordered audits of every school system in the state.

This might be fun.

By WhatWillBridgetDo?

May 25, 2007 6:35 PM | Link to this

Notice none of the reporters running the blog now seem to have jumped in to offer a spirited defense of the AJC on this. I’d love to know where they go to blog.