Tim,
I called the SVUSD office to ask why the score is only at 20%. They said the County is going off the CBED's, a report filed with the state every year. In Simi, if a high school student takes a class a Moorpark College, in summer school, or at night, they do not get duel credit. So what happens is that the Counselor signs off by hand that a student has all the UC/CSU classes, including the one's from Moorpark College. They do not however report to the state that the student took the college class because they don't give duel credit (because the student has already received a college credit). They said if you added this in, then Simi would be at about 34%, not the 20% reported by the County.

Prove it, with data independent of the school district. Otherwise, it's just an opinion.

Parents: are you satisfied with 20%, or even 34%?

Arleigh,
Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate the research. However, I would have to assume that the County office used the same methodology in calculating the #'s in all of the districts (otherwise, what is the point of the study?)

In other words, if Simi's #'s are reflecting too low, then quite probably, so are the other districts, depending on the # of these kids who are in the same situation.

Given that, I content that we must either deal with the numbers presented for discussion, or assume a reasonable % of upflow/downflow on the unreporteds. These are still the #'s that realtors, business people and parents need to make when selecting schools.

Tim

Arleigh,

If that is the case would it be true of other school districts as well.

Also I know that many students make up or replace classes that would make them not qualify for UC/CSU at either the adult school or Moorpark college sometimes while similtaneously enrolled at SVUSD if they did not qualify for acceptance terms at UC/USC School even after graduation.
( my son for example who could not fit the courses in under the SVUSD schedule so he went at night or summer at adult school or Moorpark as well as taking a course at Occidental College)I know that UC/USC will even hold acceptances if a students needs to make up a class to qualify.

As you know stats can be presented from many different perspectives so I understand your caution at accepting them for face value without understandig their collection gathering process.

My question is if Fillmore has 41% of "graudating" students eligible and SV has 20% eligible of graduating than how many of their actual students in the class graduated in the first place, this certianly would skew the results. ie. if only 50% of fillmore students graduated and then 40% of them were eligible as opposed to 80% of SV graduating with 20% of them eligible, makes you wonder?

Regradless of the spin on the numbers we need to have more students eligible and prepared to explore all possible options.

Arleigh I also agree that internships and preparing students for vocations is equally important. I would like to work with the Chamber on how we could better work with our local businesses.

Microsoft offers a sabbatical to their mathematicians and scientists to teach local schools to enhance the sciences and hopefully help raise the level of skilled area in their area. I would like to see the larger techonology companies in our area do the same, Boeing, Rockwell, Baxter, Amgen, Shell/Solar, Dole, Zebra, P& G etc. Any takers out there?

My husband works for Harman/JBL and is the Director of Engineering, he taught 5th grade science for a year. His employer adopted the entire school and sends employees regularly to tutor teach, update technology, do fundraisers etc.

His employer also sponsored a student attendance contest at Santa Susana HS last year in SV and donated two Home Theater systems for prizes to students as well as providing sound sytems for their dance studio and recording studio.

The entire community needs to own the success of our students, let's start to look at the man in the mirror.

It is my understanding high schools can choose to give duel credit or not. Therefore, each District could be reporting different CBED stats. The County apparently only went off the CBED's. Jerre, do your own homework for a change. Call the Counselors at Simi High, Santa Su High and Royal High, then gives us the names of who you spoke to and exactly what they said. These numbers also do not tell us how many students go to a JC and then onto a CSU or UC. Tim, your methodology is suspect. Also you assume the school can force students and parents to take all the CSU/UC courses, obviously there is choice involved here. The question should be are students denied the chance to take all CSU/UC courses and the answer is no. Also Tim, there were many good things listed in this report from the County, why did you again focus on what you perceived to be negative? One of the stories was titled "Ventura County Districts Make Big Gains on API Scores". Another said "Math and Verbal SAT Scores Increase". Another said, "Ventura County Students Outperform Peers Statewide On California Standards Test."

Nice try Arls, but I said in the second paragraph:

"This will be the first of many blog entries on this report, but here is the first startling report"

So let me get this straight - I report something verbatim out of the VCSS report, it's not very good information, it may be based on faulty numbers (according to you) and yet, MY methodology is bad?

What exactly is MY methodology, considering I am simply stating what the County is reporting to the tax payer.

And while I am at it, wouldn't it make sense for you as an educator to say "wow, these numbers are unacceptable" - I noticed in your run down of the stories that you ignored the gains made in NCLB AYP scores?

Now stop cherry picking the facts - and speak to the issue at hand.

Tim

Tim,
I gave a sampling of headlines. You by your own admission chose to start with a story you believed was negative and showed schools in a bad light. Your methodology of "Gee, all schools and Districts must report things the same way" was not accurate. For years Simi did not report parents education levels on the API and the scores versus similiar schools suffered (The Board did not report this because parents were upset and the Board responded to their concerns). In terms of the CSU/UC numbers what's missing is an explanation of why not all students are choosing to take these classes. Again, there is a choice for students and their parents to make, are you saying you should make that choice for them?!

So you went to the Simi district, got what they reported as "fact" and we are to assume they do one thing, one district does another, and then other districts report their own way?

Are you saying that this report is then bogus, and not worth the thousands of dollars spent to print and distribute it? I'll contact Dr. Weis and see if I can get their methodology behind the report, since you think it's so inaccurate as to be bogus.

Tim

Right - I guess we are just suppose to trust the districts to get it right - From the Sac Bee:

Tutors say parents, kids missing free help
By BEN FELLER, AP Education Writer
Last Updated 1:48 pm PST Thursday, February 16, 2006
WASHINGTON (AP) - Schools are blocking huge numbers of poor children from getting free tutoring, civil rights advocates and private tutoring companies said Thursday.
In a Capitol meeting sponsored by House and Senate education leaders of both parties, tutoring providers pointed to what they called an unkept federal promise.

Low-income parents are supposed to get a free tutor for any child who goes to a school that gets federal poverty aid but has not made steady progress for three straight years.
Parents get to pick the tutor they want - even a private one - from a state list.

But that central pledge of the 2002 No Child Left Behind law is often not being met.

Only 11 percent of eligible children, or 226,000 out of nearly 2 million students who qualify, received tutoring in the 2004 school year, according to the Education Department.

The numbers of underserved kids could be even higher because data collection is not always strong.

"There are millions of eligible students who are not getting services," said Jeff Cohen, president of Catapult Learning, which is providing tutoring to roughly 50,000 children this year. "We have got to correct that. At its face value, it's wrong."

The low numbers of tutored students are not because of a lack of interest, but because some schools make getting help nearly impossible for parents, tutoring advocates said. Their examples:

-Publicity that is so filled with jargon that parents don't understand it. "It needs to say two words: free tutoring," said Leigh Hopkins, vice president for education at Public/Private Ventures, a nonprofit think tank.

-Registration sessions are held in the middle of the work day, when parents cannot attend.

-School administrators and school board members who make it difficult for tutors to get time or space inside schools, or even to talk directly to teachers.

Panelists also spoke of schools and districts that dissuade parents from accepting tutoring on grounds that it would eat up federal aid that schools need for other reasons.

There are separate problems with tutoring, a review by the independent Center on Education Policy shows. Many states say they have little ability to oversee the quality of the tutoring providers, and little proof that tutoring has boosted academic achievement.

The Education Industry Association, a lobbying group for more than 800 corporate and individual members who provide services, organized the meeting. The tutoring provision is a lucrative opportunity for the industry, particularly as the doors to more schools open.

But the event was also sponsored by the Republican chairmen and top Democrats of the House and Senate education committees, who have heard complaints that the law isn't working.

None of those lawmakers attended.

In its new public relations campaign, the industry lobbying group plans to spotlight districts that have embraced tutoring - and expose ones that deny access.

The Education Department has also sought to publicize school systems that have been successful in enrolling students. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings has even bent the federal rules in Boston, Chicago and New York City to try to expand access for children.

Advocates want more aggressive federal enforcement, but deputy assistant secretary Holly Kuzmich said it's hard for the department to "resolve problems in 15,000 school districts."

--

Jerre, Arleigh,

Is the difference in students that take the needed class because of student/parent choice or some other reason? If it a family choice, what should we do? If it some other reason, what is the reason?

Brian,
Thanks for illuminating my point better than I could. No one knows WHY, or how these choices are being made, or if the kids/parents are even playing a role.

Where is the data?

And why would these choices be so vastly different for students in the Conejo Valley, or Oxnard, vs. Simi Valley?

I think graduation rates are as important as anyone - but I think being able to do something effective in life with that diploma is the key. If Simi Valley or other districts have 79% (or even 65%) of kids simply not moving on to 4 year colleges, but Conejo has 51% (or higher) advancing to 4 year college, isn't that troubling?

Great question Brian - WHY?

Tim

On every high school accountability report card, the following statement is made with statistics to follow:

Student Enrollment in Courses Required for University of California (UC) and/or California State University (CSU) Admission
Data reported are the number and percent of student enrollment in courses required for the University of California (UC) and/or California State University (CSU) admission. The percent of student enrollment is calculated by dividing the total student enrollment in courses required for UC and/or CSU admission by the total student enrollment in all courses.
Note: Each student is counted in each course in which the student is enrolled. As a result of these duplicated counts, the student enrollment in all courses will, and the student enrollment in courses required for the UC and/or CSU admission may, exceed the actual student enrollment figure for the school.

---end---

So using the same methodology that the county used (reporting $ of students with classes passed, or qualifying) Here are some stats from other California High School Districts:

Fresno = 50.5%
ETNA = 57.4%
Los Alamitos = 50.2%

Individual High Schools:

Hart High (Valencia/Canyon Country) = 51%%
Chatsworth High School (my alma mater) = 45.6%

Simi High = 17.3%
Royal = 27.1%
Agoura High = 40%

So - I will ask again - is this the best we can do Ventura County?

Tim Keaney

Cathy Carlson from TO here: I'm not surprised at the statistics. The public has heard for years that our locals schools are "excellent". No, they are not. The CVUSD has many schools that have not made the minimum API requirement of 800 points since the Academic Performance Index was started 8 years ago. (API starts at 200 and goes to 1000.) Thousand Oaks High School FINALLY broke the 75% or 800 target mark last year. Yet, the CVUSD invested a fortune trying to keep up the perception that they have "world class schools" simply because our rich district chose to spend money pursuing awards, which did indeed convince the public that we are "special". The newspapers also swallowed the lies. Well, the lipstick on that pig is beginning to look ridiculous in the Public's eye.

Now for the good news. The CVUSD is improving... sort of. 2 years ago 11 schools (more than 1/3 of our 27 schools) failed to make the California state minium target. But last year only 7 failed, and this year it is 4. That IS better, isn't it? Where are the balloons and party hats?

People have tried to tell me it is the English Learners that bring down the scores. No. It is not the hispanic population that held back TOHS from getting 800 points for 7 years. Underperforming (lazy??) white kids averaged less than 800 points every year, except 2005, when they rode the tide and benefitted from an apparently easier set of tests. The entire state improved 20 points, or 2.5%. (Every 8 points is 1%.) It is the Asian subgroup (some of whom were ELL once upon a time) at TOHS that saves the day on the API reports. The state wants the public to know these things, so they are printed in the ethnic breakdown on the API, but the schools won't readily tell you how to access this.

Today I am giving a talk at a private school on just this problem. This coverup will be "outed" soon by a pack of education advocates who will be visiting the private secular and religious schools all over Ventura County who are damaged by the public schools giving out bad information.

Thank you Cathy for stating the point that local schools fall short of the "excellent" rating that many are quick to give. Parents believe what they want to believe, statistics be damned. I have tried to bring this information forward. The fact that it was presented in the Star last week may cause some to re-think their opinion. One thing you will hear parents say is "well, I know the district is not doing so good, but the school that my kids go to is just fine." They have to say that or they have to examine why they are putting their kids in that school. It's really quite funny to hear.

One more thing, even worse, in my opinion. I have a friend here in the east county who chose a high school based upon where his son would have the best chance of playing football. He didn't care at all about the academic rank of the school.