oh....

well....

nuthin. Nuthin to say.

Mmmmmm. Popcorn.






[This message has been edited by Captain Pablo (edited 12/10/2010 1:13p).]

i literally have a bowl sitting here waiting for somebody to post academic smack between belton and temple. it smells good but is getting cold.

TISD must be blocking Texags.com.

No Temple vs. Belton smack here. I don't know how Belton did, and I don't give a rat's ass. I was simply referring to Temple's latest academically unacceptable rating. oops, I let it slip....

I thought I read on here not long ago that Temple HS was one of the top schools in the nation? I know TISD is way more than Temple High School, but these constant ratings, the flight from the district, voting a bond down like 80/20. You just cannot sugarcoat it and twist facts forever. Ridiculous really. Temple is a great place to live. The people deserve way better schools than this.

Yeah, you read a lot of stuff on here excu.., um, I mean EXPLAINING it. Pretty entertaining stuff.

I will say this, the paper quoted some TISD officials explaining that this years rating is based on 2008 scores/figures, and that recent scores were much higher and will be reflected in next years ratings. If the rating is higher, give credit where credit is due. There are wonderful teachers in the district, and the upper echelon is top notch. But overall there is some level of disfunction from soume source(s) that needs to be fixed.








[This message has been edited by Captain Pablo (edited 12/10/2010 8:31p).]

How can you say this:

"The people deserve way better schools than this."

When you state earlier that a school bond was put down 80/20?


Doesnt look like the people really deserve it after all....

there is no support for Temple schools in the community. It is a shame because the teachers and students are working their ears off!

Best of luck to TISD!

Apparantly not working hard enough...to get the unacceptable you gotta suck

I just checked TEA. Temple is AA, Academically acceptable and the majority of the elementary schools are recognized.

Quit slamming them. The dropout rate at Temple high is a concern, but they have large numbers of students in population groups that have dropout issues.

Belton--62.8 percent white, 37 percent economically disadvantaged, 39 percent at risk.

Temple, 38 percent white, 53 percent economically disadvantaged, 45 percent at risk.

It is apples to oranges to try to compare them. Temple was close to being recognized with MUCH tougher demographics.




[This message has been edited by 3rd Generation Ag (edited 12/12/2010 7:24p).]

3G,
I was going by what was in the telegram last week. It said Temple was acedemically unacceptable. If it was wrong, then major props to Temple ISD.

As for that other thing, you are going to just have to figure out a way to not take this wrong, but that whole excuse of having certain demographic groups that are succeptible to drop out is a crock. Instead of being cryptic, let's just be open about it. Are we talking about large numbers of Hispanics that drop out more than others and that causes the low ratings? Or is it blacks? Poor people? Czechs? Farmers' kids? Whhat population group is dragging the ratings down? Because whatever group you come up with, there are probably several dozen districts in the state with HIGHER percentages of students belonging to that demographic that are doing just fine, or at least acceptible.

Again, with all do respect, I say this. So please don't blow a gasket and think I'm "attacking" teachers, especially Temple teachers. Same goes for one of my favorite posters of all time, janag. There's been a problem at TISD, whether perceptual or real. I say identify the problem, fix it, and show the world what this special place is capable of!!!!

You edited before I posted. Same issues. And it has nothing to do with Belton. It has to do with gettinG temple where it needs to be.

Let me double check tea again if you read that.http://tisd.org/modules/cms/pages.phtml?pageid=194384&sessionid=1875c9d3937de9a5d7d58cc92b7d2fb5&sessionid=1875c9d3937de9a5d7d58cc92b7d2fb5

Temple has it on their website. Last time they WERE unacceptable, but this time not. In fact Temple high was pretty close to being recognized.

[This message has been edited by 3rd Generation Ag (edited 12/12/2010 7:44p).]

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/cgi/sas/broker?_service=marykay&_program=sfadhoc.web_report_0607.sas&_service=appserv&_debug=0&who_box=&who_list=014909

tea has not updated this in many years. I don't think districts liked being ranked.

Well, I'll see if I still have the paper. I could have sworn it said Temple academically unacceptable.





[This message has been edited by Captain Pablo (edited 12/12/2010 8:14p).]

You can search the 2010 results on the TEA Web Site

I'm pretty impressed that Waco University IS Academically Acceptable but Waco High is NOT. Waco High had too many African American dropouts, too many Hispanic dropouts and too many dropouts overall.

Alright, I found the article, and it's not online. It was second front, last Thursday, and basically said State rates districts. Underneath was a list of school districts and the ratings, and it said temple was unacceptible. When you read the story, you find out it was based in old numbers, and it also had something to do with expenditures. So yes, it was based on old data, but CRAP when you look at it, it looks like a story about released ratings. Whether misleading or not, and whether unintentiinal, the headline and story as presented IMO gives the wrong impression, at least initially. I don't know how to post the article, but it's from December 9 I believe if you wantti check it out. It obviously was based on data from BEFORE the ast rating, which was acceptible. I am still trying to understand the point of the article!!!

Pablo, these things are confusing.

Now more than you want to know.

There are NOW three ratings. The state one is what most people know. Temple was acceptable.

There is now a new one by the comptroller on "return on investment" but in my opinion it is pretty flawed, in large part because it uses old data for part of the rating, and current data for another part. Three years of school history is in it, and none include this last year.

It also seems to have one other flaw. It rates schools on "improvement" for one rating--how much individual students "improved" on taks from year to year.

But it ignores the nature of the test itself. I was just at some training from TEA. The NEW starr test will be vertically aligned, but the old taks was not. Each year's test was a measure of students learning that years material. In the case of less frequent testing--then the multi year range. But the next test in sequence was written independent of the first, and therefore is not really a true growth measure.

For example they compared 8th grade "reading" scores to 9th grade "reading" scores, ignoring the face that the tests don't even look alike. 9th grade test has a substantial writing element even though it is still called a reading test. It also has about half the reading tested at the analytical level. Suddenly there are only two passages but they are long passages. Middle school reading tests are just that--reading tests--with basic comprehension still a large part of the test.

This rating was not good for Temple or for where I teach, but I KNOW that the rating for my school was not a valid measure of student growth.

Now comes the zinger. There is a THIRD measure of accountability for schools This is the FEDERAL one for NCLB. In Bell county there were RECOGNIZED districts and campuses for the state that failed the federal measure, called AYP. IN fact Temple did fail to reach AYP. This has significance when it starts to be a mulityear issue. Schools can lose federal funding and students at some level MUST be allowed to transfer (and take their state money) to other districts who do meat AYP. My school did meet AYP, but it is tough since it measures many factors in a way that is different than TAKS and the state.


Confused anyone?

[This message has been edited by 3rd Generation Ag (edited 12/16/2010 5:03a).]

Good breakdown 3G. I saw the article on the ROI for districts. It did seem flawed. This study used some older data and was supposed to evaluate whether the district spent money wisely in regards to educating their students (based off test scores). One Waco High School board member had a good question about the study, "How much did it cost?", just a thought.

IMO Captain P seems to be looking for a fight. I've read the arguments in the past, kind of entertaining, but also kind of childish. Temple faces many challenges, and seems to be on the uptick. Let's hope things continue to progress positively.

I'd be interested to see the ROI report. So when WISD builds a new stadium with a Jumbotron, what does that do for test scores versus when they actually spend on education like the new University HS?

And to make things even more interesting, UHS's ratings are already superior to Waco HS even without the new building. So, does that now show the new school to be a poor return on investment?

What about cross-town rival Midway? Their scores went down this year. Are they getting a bad return from their recent infrastructure investments? Or, do they need to spend fewer dollars until after test scores come up?

I love people who blame the "football fields" for schools problems and their test scores.

I don't care to know how much Waco paid for their stadium but as many games they have hosted the last ten years plus all the money the save in maintenance costs, it will be PAID off!

Same thing with Temple, don't blame the athletic department (i.e. Football field) for the administrators and parents lack of ability to get kids to buy into the importance of their education.

Just sayin that when I toured the new MHS, I struggled to find the classrooms amongst the separate locker rooms for every sport.

One of the things hard to grasp is that money is sometimes available for building that can not be spent for regular instructional needs. Just the way some of the spending laws are written.

Hollywood, from what I remember seeing on the news Midway was rated highly on the ROI report along with Valley Mills, China Spring, Riesel, and Axtell.

As far as test scores with MISD, they actually went up this year, not sure where you got the "went down" information. They were rated Recognized (2010) vs. Academically Acceptable (2009). You can search for results on the TEA website.

When it comes to football stadiums and locker rooms and such, I won't argue that the Waco and Midway stadiums are extravagant compared to most, but as bluto mentioned, they bring in quite a bit of money for stadium rental not to mention the influx to the Waco economy due to many visitors that come in for the games. Also, I don't know for a fact, but I would guess that this study considers monies supplied by the federal and state governments based on the amount of students within the district, not money supplied by bonds passed by the voters of the school district in which they reside. Most building projects are built with taxpayer money, so to point the finger at WISD for building a nice stadium as a reason why they haven't been successful doesn't really make sense.